2006-10-06

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to represent the New Democratic Party and the people of Timmins—James Bay who are very dependent on forestry products and the forestry industry for the economic viability of our region. I am pleased to be speaking on their behalf on this bill.
The House of Commons is somewhat like a surreal theatre because we have on any given day, on any given number of bills, 300 people in the House, half of whom act like Chicken Little, that the sky is falling, and the other half who say life has never been better. 
Then, of course, we accuse each other of all sorts of calamity, and perfidious behaviour, that if the bill is allowed to go through it will undermine the very future fabric of our country.
With that being said, there are occasions when a bill is brought before the House that does have profound implications, it must be challenged. In terms of this bill and what it is proposing to do, it has sold out the rights of our resource industry. On top of that, the predatory nature that the government is imposing toward our softwood producers who are not knuckling down, and the pressure that the House is being asked to bring to bear upon our own industry is certainly one of the more egregious examples I would think in our nation's history of a government acting against the interests of its own people.
Being from a Scottish background I would think of what my grandmother would say now. She would talk about Such A Parcel Of Rogues In A Nation:
  What force or guile could not subdue, Thro' many warlike ages, Is wrought now by a coward few, For hireling traitor's wages. We're bought and sold for English gold- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!  
There is a fundamental difference between the parcel of rogues who sold out Scotland and the parcel of rogues that are selling out our resource industry right now. At least the chieftains who sold out their own people in Scotland got some money for it.
We are being asked in Parliament to pay money, so that we can sell ourselves out. I think that is an unprecedented situation. We are seeing that the communities I represent no longer matter to the government. They are being written off the political and economic map of Canada, communities such as Smooth Rock Falls; Kenogami; New Liskeard, where they have lost jobs; Red Rock; and Ignace. 
They are being told to fend for themselves because when industry came back to the government after the deal was presented, it said the deal was bad and that it could not go forward with it.
What did the government tell our own industry? It said, too bad, sign it because the government would sign it regardless. When the industry did not buckle down, the government came forward with a number of clauses that I will get to in a moment where we are actually going after the economic viability of any company that has the guts to stand up to this venal sellout of our resource industry.
What did we get out of this deal? We are giving $1 billion to our competitors, $500 million that will be used against us in the competing communities and against the coalitions that have been actively pursuing these wasteful legal actions against us. There is not a cent being put into any forestry community in the country suffering from job losses as a result of this battle.
Instead of the 10% softwood deal, we are being asked by Parliament to impose a 15% tariff on our own producers in order to win peace with the Americans. 
Instead of fair trade and open trade, we are now being given a crippled market, a market with a narrow window for our own producers to work within. If the market goes south at any point, more restrictive tariffs will be imposed. 
What kind of investments are softwood producers going to be willing to make in Canada because they cannot ramp up the market? It will become a static market. There will be no incentive for a company to invest in Canada under this deal.
In fact, we are seeing that the companies that are investing, that have plants in Canada, are investing south of the border. I could name numerous Canadian companies that are already setting up down in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina because it is a better climate for them down there. Perhaps they will be making use of the $500 million that was taken out of Canadian companies and sent down to our Canadian operations in the U.S.
What kind of peace did we get out of this deal? Would we have sold a billion dollars of our producers' money to get a seven year deal of peace? Perhaps. For five years? It would have been iffy. For three years? We have a bare 18 months, and the escape clause for the Americans is that they can terminate it anytime they feel that we are not playing by the rules, and guess what? Within the last week, we have the U.S. lumber interests already saying that they are gearing up to come after us with full guns blazing. No wonder they are getting ready to gear up. They have $500 million of our money to come back after us once this deal is signed.
Those are the well known facts, but less well known. This is what needs to be heard outside this House and it needs to be heard in every resource community across this country, particularly the clauses the government is bringing to attack our own industry, and to feed on our own industry. The political version of the pine beetle is what we see with this Conservative Party.
Clause 10 will call on Parliament to impose a 15% tax on our own producers who are using fair and open trade. We will be imposing a tax on them.
Clause 18 is the real kicker clause. The government is going to impose a special tax on companies that do not knuckle under and give up their legal rights. I ask this House, has there ever been another case where a government has imposed a tariff on its own producers to punish them for not bending down and kissing the ring of the trade minister on this deal? Now we are looking at tariffs upward of 37% being applied against our own companies in order to force agreement on this bill.
Clause 48 would require a six year burden of record-keeping for these companies. This is another administrative burden that the government is imposing on our own producers.
Clause 77 states that the government does not even need a warrant to enter the premises of our softwood producers.
Clause 89 gives a blank cheque to the minister to demand payment from these companies at any time. I need to put this in perspective because our producers are suffering from a major financial crisis at this moment. The government knows this. The government knows that many of the stalwarts of the softwood industry are on very weak financial legs. 
What chance would any of these companies, that are wishing to maintain their legal rights, have of going to the bank to renegotiate overextended loans when the government is asking this House to impose measures that will demand money from those producers? We are applying a 37% tariff against our own companies. We can go in and check their books. The government can audit them, can go after them, and can take money from them.
What producers will be able to secure financing from the banks through this period? Yet, that being said, they still have not buckled under to this deal, have they? We still know that industries are saying that even if they are on their last legs, this deal is a bad deal because it is a bad deal for the long term viability for the resource industry of Canada.
The other aspect of this deal in terms of a venal sellout of our national interests is that we are allowing the U.S. lumber coalitions to set and to have a say on our own domestic provincial policies in terms of forestry management.
Once again I return to the notion of the rogues that sold out this nation. At this point I really feel it is incumbent upon me to speak to our friends from the Bloc Québécois. Here is a party that stood up in this House and opposed a national plan for pesticides because it would interfere with the rights of Quebec. Here is a party that opposed a national child care plan because it did not want any intervention at all in the rights of Quebec. Here is a party, when we had our debate on an Alzheimer's national strategy, that said it would not support to any degree a national Alzheimer's strategy because it interferes with the rights of Quebec. 
Yet, this is a party that stands up in this House with its kissing cousins, the Conservatives, and says that it will allow the United States government to set forestry policy in Quebec. It will allow the Conservative Government of Canada to come into Quebec to check and ensure that its producers are complying. 
That is the level of interference that the Bloc Québécois members are sitting back and allowing. It is fascinating. It is unprecedented that they, along with the government, are selling out the long term interests of our resource sector and our provinces' ability to set resource policy in this country.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to ask a question, but I feel compelled to with the extremely effective and accurate case that the member has put forward, and I compliment him on that.
 The position has been put forward by the government that the only other course which has been recommended by the government and which the member has criticized, and effectively as I said, is a continuation of the legal process that would not benefit the industry. The government members have laid out chapter and verse how they feel that a lack of benefit would result.
 It was my recollection that while we had won in every international forum set up through the WTO our cases with respect to the softwood lumber issue, that the government was still on the tangent with respect to the bill.
It was also my recollection that one of the opportunities we had was to pursue this through the American courts to seek justice which had been given but denied in terms of the course that the government has decided to take. 
I would like to ask the member this question. In view of the fact that there is this huge paradox that he has indicated, not only for the industry and sections of the industry but with the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, what other course, given what the government's rationale is, would he have suggested that the House should take?
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing this out. It is a very interesting question because we were looking at the final stages, the final two legal hurdles. We have won in every court dispute. We have the legal precedents behind us.
Our Prime Minister said we were looking at seven more years of litigation. That is not true. With the Tembec case, we were subject to one final appeal. In the extraordinary challenge committee judgment that would have come out in August, we would have been in a position where we would be winning the final last two non-appealable judgments. They were going in our favour. That is why industries are still not signing on because they are being asked to give up those legal precedents.
The question is, why not wait? Why not allow our industry to secure those legal judgments? I would submit to the House that what we are seeing here is once again an exercise by a government that is more interested in cheap slogans and photo ops. It is preparing to bring the House down perhaps this spring than actually securing the long term interests of our industry and our resource dependent communities.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful analysis of an issue that has not had sufficient analysis or time. I would like his comments on the consultation process.
We hear from people who are producers and certainly people who are working in the field that they were not listened to or talked to. In fact, we asked the government to provide a list of who it consulted. It is in a locked box and there is no key to that box. Obviously, we are having to go by the terms “just trust us”.
 Many people have been concerned about the process and I would like to get my colleagues comments on the process of consultation for this sellout.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, the consultation process was very clear. This is a government that said to the United States, “Look, we want a quick and dirty deal. What do we have to do?” and the United States said, “Here, sign this”. That was the end of consultation. 
We asked the industry, where were they? They were not at the table. We have talked to representatives of industry. Representatives of industry have phoned us. We have met with them. They said again and again, “We went to this government and we said this deal is a bad deal”. 
They were all over the media saying that this was a bad deal. Not only has the deal not improved since industry first spoke up, but the deal has become worse in the meantime. There was no consultation because the government was not interested in the long term interests of the resource sector.
The government will give $1.5 billion a year in subsidies to the Alberta oil and gas industry, but we have had community after community right across this country go down. They were begging for loan guarantees and support to see them through. They were starved of support. There are communities like Ignace, Red Rock, Kenora, Opasatika, Béarn and Malartic that have gone down, and the government has sat back and watched them go down. 
Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we often hear from the Conservatives that the industry and the local communities support this deal. The reality is that some of them have said they are going to support the deal because the Conservatives have said they will not support the industry if the deal is not signed. How could the forestry industry in Canada possibly continue this countervailing duty fight without the support and encouragement of the federal government? It just would not work. U.S. producers are bankrolled extremely well and the precedent has already been set. 
We have to help the industry. That is why our party has said we would reject the deal. It is contrary to NAFTA. We would provide some bridge financing, some support to the industry, some loan guarantees. That would not be countervailable because we have won at every single panel. 
This is not about subsidies. Anyone who thinks this is about subsidies is not dealing with reality. This is about protecting inefficient U.S. producers. They are not as efficient as Canadian sawmills. In terms of total factor productivity, they are about 40% less productive.
Most of the forestry land in the United States is private land. As soon as U.S. producers launch countervailing duty claims, the private lands are revalued upward because the U.S. has a protectionist policy in place. Who wins? Shareholders of big companies like Georgia-Pacific, International Paper, Boise Cascade and all those companies, they win. Do homeowners, homebuyers and developers in the United States win? Of course not, because the price of a house goes up by about $1,000 to $1,500 a year. Who else wins? We know who else wins. Lobbyists and lawyers in the United States are big winners because this is a big gravy train for them. 
The deal perpetuates the lie that Canada's softwood lumber industry is subsidized. That argument has been defeated many times by objective panels, which have had U.S. representatives sitting on them. This is a sweetheart deal between the Conservative government and the Bush administration. If we scratch the surface, we find that it is not such a great sweetheart deal for Canada, but it is a sweetheart deal for the United States. 
We have debated in this House to a great extent on why this is not a good deal, so I will not get into all the specifics today. I want to branch out into a different line of attack. 
The president of the United States had the opportunity to reject the appeal that came to him in the White House, the extraordinary appeal, when the panel said it wanted another appeal. The authority to reject that appeal was in the hands of the president of the United States. He could have ended this countervailing duty case. It would have meant that the $5.3 billion would have come back to Canadian producers and the countervailing duty action would have ended. What did he do? He said no. He said to do a deal but that he still had to give U.S. producers their ability to appeal, even though panels consistently said there was no subsidy.
The United States has said our timber is underpriced. What the Americans are really saying is that we do not have a full auctioning system in Canada because most of our forest land is crown forest land. There is some private land, but most of it is crown forest land. A lot of the forest land in the United States is private land, so the private timber is auctioned. 
However, what has happened in the United States? I think we should pay some attention to this. Maybe timber in the United States is overpriced. I will tell the House why that is the case. I know this to be a fact.
In the Pacific northwest in particular, there has been speculative pricing. People are bidding forward in terms of forward pricing. Twenty years hence, they will have to harvest this timber and in many cases they have found it is not economically sound to do so. The U.S. Forest Service also puts a lot of timber up for auction. When companies deliver on their auction price, the economics do not work and the U.S. government lets them off the hook on their auction price. Is that an auction system? I do not think so.
The U.S. Forest Service also provides huge amounts of subsidies for road building and other aspects of forestry in the United States. Does that ever come into the equation? Of course not. 
As well, what about the subsidies at the state and local levels? I worked in the forest industry, and I can tell members that in Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia if anyone tries to put up an OSB mill, a lumber mill or a pulp mill, the state governments and the local governments will be there writing cheques like we would not believe.
Does that come up in the debate? No, because the process is skewed. All we can do is try to defend our system. In our system, because of a public policy preference in Canada, most of our forestry is on crown land. We have a very good and very efficient system.
If we move to more of an auction system in Canada, the presumption is that it will push up delivered wood costs in Canada. I submit to the House that this is not going to happen. In fact, it could end up being exactly the reverse, and that by putting more timber up for auction, the delivered wood costs will go down. What would be the case then? 
If the U.S. producers were sincere about their concern about our delivered wood costs, which of course they are not because they are only concerned about protecting their inefficient sawmills, if the Americans were really interested, that would be a concern to them. If we move to more of an auction timber system, then delivered wood costs to the sawmills will go down.
Why would that happen? I know there are some mills in British Columbia that have a mix of what are called small woodlot operators and crown timber. In their mix of timber, a lot of the wood they get on the auction system is cheaper than the price of the timber they are getting from the crown land.
As for this panacea, first of all, this is philosophical in nature. Because the United States has mostly non-crown forest land, then that must be the best system, so we in Canada have to go to auction timber. I would contend that this is robbing us of our sovereignty in terms of Canadian public policy.
 We have the anti-circumvention clause within this so-called softwood lumber deal, which not only will attack moves by our federal government or the provinces to lay out good, sound forest policy in Canada, but also will rob us of our sovereignty. It fails to recognize that we have a different approach to things here in Canada. Why should we submit to the U.S. approach and policy when it comes to the way it deals with its forest companies?
This deal is not really a deal. It perpetuates the lie that Canadian softwood lumber is subsidized. We know for a fact that is not the case. It basically says to us that if we do not have an approach to forest policy that is similar to or the equivalent of what is done in the United States, then we must be wrong and the U.S. must be right.
I am a great believer in the power of the market. A market tells us a lot in terms of what is economically viable and what makes sense. But to have a functioning market, there has to be a fair market, a free flowing market, with knowledgeable buyers and sellers, and the market has to stick with the agreed upon prices.
As I said earlier, we have instances in the United States on auction timber, because there is this frenzy of speculative pricing into the future, where the pricing becomes disassociated with the economics. There is the case of the U.S. Forest Service, which has let some of these companies off the hook downstream in terms of their bid price. Is that what we would call an auction system? I do not think so. In an auction system there is a bid and, come hell or high water, we are stuck with that bid. It is not functioning like that in the United States.
In the U.S. Pacific northwest, we have seen the impact of the environmentalists. The famous spotted owl has taken huge swaths and tracts of commercial forestry land out of production. Is that the right environmental approach or not? I am not here to debate that. What I am saying is that it has taken huge amounts of productive forest land out of contention and that has resulted in a huge amount of speculative pricing, pricing that I would contend prices their timber erroneously high. Then our system ends up pricing timber in a fashion that is consistent with our values, our culture and the way we go about forest policy in Canada.
This deal is a total affront to Canadian sovereignty and our ability to set our own course here in Canada. For that reason, this deal should be rejected completely. We should provide the industry the support it needs to fight this countervailing duty right to the bitter end, because we have won and we will continue to win.
Alan Tonks: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has a considerable amount of experience through his former role as parliamentary secretary to the finance minister. I think we can see from his comments and those of the previous speaker that there is concern expressed on two counts. The first is the punitive nature with respect to the application of this agreement on our own softwood lumber industry. The second is the question of precedents, whereby there is no evidence and no adherence to the rule of law with respect to international treaty obligations. On those two counts, our future would be imperilled inasmuch as a great deal of our trade of course is through the WTO and NAFTA. 
In view of those two inferences which come from this particular agreement, in particular the one with respect to precedents that would affect future agreements in a wider spectrum of industry, I would like to ask the member how he sees this agreement in terms of that precedent, and whether he can see on the horizon other implications for other industries in other parts of our economic sectors.
[Interjection]
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question from my colleague from York South--Weston. This is fundamentally one of the major problems with this deal. We have consistently, through objective panels, won the argument that Canadian softwood lumber is not subsidized. Through independent panels that consist of people from the United States, people who are experts in their fields, we have consistently won that battle.
If we have to negotiate in a case where we have been winning every appeal under the NAFTA panels, what does that say for other sectors? I know that the steel industry is concerned. I know that other sectors are concerned. They say they believe they have strong cases as well, but there are very few cases that could be as strong as that of softwood lumber. We have won consistently at every single panel.
I am sure there must be some people in the United States who are now thinking, well, my goodness, if Canada is going to negotiate around softwood lumber where the panels have consistently said there is no subsidy, that gives us a good opportunity, so why do we not take on Canada as well? It sets a horrible precedent. In principle, it argues totally against the notion of NAFTA, free and fair trade, which the U.S. signed on to, we signed on to and the Mexicans signed on to. This is a horrible precedent.
We know this has nothing to do with subsidy. We know that as soon as Canada starts to take more than 30% of the market share of softwood lumber in the U.S. market, the U.S. producers belly up to the bar, bankroll a huge fund and say they are going to launch a countervailing duty action. They know that puts the Canadian industry into disarray because it takes a lot of money and effort to fight these countervailing duty cases.
This is a horrible precedent. I think we should fight it and we should provide support in the communities and the industry. If we are going to fight this, we have to give them the tools to fight it. Many of their balance sheets are not in great shape, so we have to provide the financial support to fight this to the bitter end. We will win it. We have won and we will do so again.
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, many ridings across the country have experienced economic impacts from the softwood lumber dispute, but the changes in my riding have been particularly acute.
New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Moody were once part of the engine of the forest industry in British Columbia, with many mills and ports collecting the harvests of B.C. and sending products out through the Fraser River and on to the Pacific. The quay in New Westminster used to bustle with lumber traffic, but no longer.
Several large lumber mills have closed over the past decade, such as the Fraser Mills plant of International Forest Products Limited, formerly owned by Fletcher Challenge, and the plywood plant at Fraser Mills, which was closed in November 1990. The Flavelle Cedar Division of Weldwood of Canada Ltd. in Port Moody also closed, and Interfor closed its remaining manufacturing facility at Fraser Mills in September 2005. The only lumber mill still running is the smaller Flavelle mill in Port Moody. 
I was in the House of Commons when the last Conservative government signed the free trade agreement. It is clear that the Canadian people were sold a bill of goods about the benefits of that agreement.
 Mechanisms were supposed to be in place that would stop punitive trade actions of the past. Dispute resolutions and harmonization of trade, we were told, would be the result. 
However, this softwood sellout lays bare the results of the FTA and NAFTA. It seems the Americans never intended to play by the rules. Once the going got tough, the Bush administration has found a willing partner in the Conservative government for the sellout of our softwood lumber industry.
This deal is based on a falsehood that Canadian softwood lumber industries are subsidized. This falsehood was exposed and rejected in each and every NAFTA and U.S. commercial court ruling. Each and every ruling has sided with the Canadian industry. Despite unequivocal dispute settlement decisions and trade court rulings, the U.S. will not play by the rules, and the Conservative government has capitulated.
The Conservative government is allowing the U.S. to abandon the rules when it does not like the results. Canada won major legal battles under the North American Free Trade Agreement and U.S. commercial courts, and Canada was just a few months away from winning the final two legal cases which would have voided the dispute and refunded every cent of the $5.3 billion in illegal levies.
Incredibly, now, we are leaving a billion dollars on the table. The deal gives $500 million in funds, owed to the Canadian softwood industry, to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, which will no doubt continue to hammer away at our industry.
The sellout sets a bad precedent not only for softwood lumber but for other industrial sectors in Canada. This deal opens the door to U.S. attacks on every Canadian industry the U.S. now wants to target. The remaining industries in British Columbia may now come under further attack because of this unravelling of NAFTA.
The softwood lumber agreement will further downsize the Canadian softwood industry and there will be huge impacts on softwood communities in British Columbia and on workers throughout British Columbia and Canada.
Mill &amp; Timber Products Ltd., which now owns the Flavelle cedar sawmill in Port Moody, is opposed to this deal. It has a long history in our community, but has suffered because of the aggressive and illegal actions of the U.S. softwood lobby.
It seems the only companies that are in favour of this softwood sellout are the ones that are headquartered in the U.S. We know this deal is bad for smaller and older companies, but it is supported by the multinationals. We know that thousands of jobs have been lost in smaller communities throughout British Columbia and other parts of Canada.
What does this deal say about the direction in which our country is going?
Many Canadians have said to me that they feel our country slipping through their fingers. Whether it is on foreign policy, which is quickly becoming a branch plant of the White House, or weakening sovereignty at our borders and our coastlines, Canadians know the government is moving us in the wrong direction.
It is entirely possible, once the money is given to the Americans, that they will decide to unilaterally suspend the deal and we will be back again at square one. Communities and industries will have gone through a huge struggle, and for what? The stability that our industry needs will only come when the court victories we have won are enforced and the Americans begin to play by the rules to which they agreed. We are certainly not going to achieve that result by wimping out and backing down.
We know this deal is wrong because it sells out our industry. We know its wrong because it sells out our communities. It sells out thousands of working families in British Columbia and Canada. We know its wrong because it sets a precedent that allows our largest trading partner to ignore trade agreements and all agreements it has signed with us.
The government will now have to stop any pretense that we have a free trade agreement with the U.S. It is just not there. It is a very sad day for Canada. It is a sad day for our working families, which rely on the lumber industry to feed their families. It is a very sad day for those small communities in British Columbia and across Canada that will feel the very negative impact that the government has achieved by selling out Canadian interest in the softwood deal.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in a previous speech, I feel very bitter as I rise to take part in this debate.
The situation leaves the Bloc Québécois with no choice, because the entire Quebec forestry and lumber industry—particularly the softwood lumber industry—has asked the Bloc Québécois to support Bill C-24, which has come out of the Canada-US softwood lumber agreement. As I said, not only the industry, but the heads of the two main labour federations that represent workers in the softwood lumber industry have called on us to support the bill. Henri Massé and Claudette Carbonneau, as well as the president of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, Guy Chevrette, have expressly asked us to support Bill C-24.
I have also seen letters sent to Gilles Duceppe by large softwood lumber companies, asking us to support this bill. 
The message these people have sent is that they are fed up and want Bill C-24 to be adopted so that they can recover a portion of the duties they paid. A billion dollars in duties levied illegally by the Americans will remain in the United States. The industry is fed up and must recover what it can immediately, or else it will be dead in a few weeks. However, no one told us that the agreement was perfect or even satisfactory.
There is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding this debate. Because the Bloc Québécois has always defended Quebeckers' interests and voiced their concerns, it will shoulder its responsibilities and vote in favour of Bill C-24. Needless to say, the Bloc Québécois will oppose the amendment introduced by the Liberals, an amendment that shows unbelievable hypocrisy on their part, because they are just as responsible as the Conservatives for the current softwood lumber situation and the agreement.
If the Liberals had not opted for what Mr. Pettigrew called at the time a “two-pronged strategy”—negotiation and legal action before the WTO and NAFTA—we would not be in this situation. The Americans have always understood that sooner or later, the Canadians and the industry would cave in and ask for a watered-down settlement. That is what happened.
The Liberals and the Conservatives should have gone through legal channels from the very beginning—especially since we were nearing the end of the process. The Liberals and the Conservatives should have supported the industry and communities affected by the crisis, but they refused to do so. They should have pursued the legal process to its conclusion, and then begun negotiations with the Americans from a position of strength regarding the legal process and with a view to reinstating free trade. But that is not what happened, and we cannot rewrite history.
I find it especially hypocritical that the Liberals' amendment says we should refuse to vote for Bill C-24 because the government failed “to provide necessary support to Canadian workers, employers and communities in the softwood sector”. Since 2003, we have been asking them to provide loan guarantees, to implement programs to help communities affected by the softwood lumber crisis and to implement a program to help older workers. During our opposition day yesterday, we asked them again.
The Liberals always refused to lift a finger unless it was almost election day. But something extraordinary has happened. They have suddenly discovered that loan guarantees were legal after all, even though for months and months, the industry minister at the time had been saying it could not be done. They suddenly found out that they could in fact advance $800 million in loan guarantees over five years because the illegal duties collected by the Americans were actually accounts receivable. They still are. 
The Bloc will vote against this amendment and vote for Bill C-24 even though we realize it is not perfect and will cause problems. This is already becoming quite clear, now that the agreement will not come into effect until November 1, rather than October 1 as planned. The Conservative government must not think that Bill C-24 will resolve all of the problems with the forest and softwood lumber industries. This applies to Quebec and all other regions in Canada.
Take, for example, the community of north Lanaudière, in my riding.
I hope the Conservative government will carefully read the report we are currently preparing for all elected members from the region, calling for a support plan for north Lanaudière, which—like other regions—is going through a major crisis as a result of the trade dispute with the Americans. For a number of years now, more than $5 billion in duties have been frozen, which has blocked investment and has taken a significant toll on the liquid assets of the companies affected by the dispute. The higher Canadian dollar has made Canadian and Quebec wood less competitive on the U.S. market.
Energy costs, the price of oil in particular, have also increased significantly. Thus, the cost of transporting the wood from the forest to the plant, and then the final product to the U.S. market is much higher for the waferboard plant in the community of Saint-Michel-des-Saints. All these factors will not just vanish the day Bill C-24 is passed.
We hope the Conservative government has started to give some serious thought to the Bloc Québécois' proposals for supporting the industry, the communities and the workers affected by the forestry crisis. Last month two Louisiana Pacific plants closed in Saint-Michel-des-Saints in north Lanaudière. One is a waferboard plant and the other a sawmill. We hope the closures are temporary, but in the meantime they caused the loss of 322 jobs: 218 in the waferboard sector and 104 at the sawmill.
We have contacted the Louisiana Pacific subcontractors: the person who took care of the electrical system, the person who took care of maintaining the forest roads and the self-employed workers who collected the wood in the forest, are all affected. The loss of these 322 jobs resulted in even more job losses, namely the 229 people working for the Louisiana Pacific subcontractors.
For a community like Saint-Michel-des-Saints, the loss of 550 jobs has a significant impact. People who end up unemployed cut back their activities. They stop going to restaurants and hotels and they no longer buy things like new snowmobiles. Saint-Michel-des-Saints is a region where the snowmobile industry is quite significant. The entire economy has slowed down and that is why 87 jobs were lost last month. In total, 638 jobs have disappeared.
What does this mean for a community such as Saint-Michel-des-Saints, where 1,275 people work? This means that 50% of the people in Saint-Michel-des-Saints lost their job.
We must not be demagogues—as certain people in this House are—because the Saint-Zénon community, which is nearby and much larger, has 482 workers. It also contributes to these activities. Thus, in total 1,757 people are active in the workforce in Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Saint-Zénon, and 510 people lost their job. In total, 30% of the population in the region is unemployed today.
Yesterday in the House we debated a program to help older workers. When Louisiana Pacific reopens its factories—which we hope it does as soon as possible—it will reopen them with fewer workers.
It closed its factories because it was having problems with productivity and competition. I am therefore not expecting—and no one should expect—all 322 workers who lost their job to be re-hired. A support program for older workers, as well as measures to help north Lanaudière diversify economically, is therefore crucial. This is why we asked the government to allocate $50 million a year for the next three years in diversification funds for Quebec. 
Businesses must also be supported so that they may continue their research and development projects. At present, tax credits are not refundable, and we know that certain companies have billions of dollars worth. We propose that tax credits for research and development be made refundable. Last year, Tembec invested $80 million in research and development, but also suffered losses.
Thus, the company could not benefit from these tax credits.
I therefore call upon the Conservative government to take very seriously the Bloc Québécois' proposals to help the industry, the workers and our communities, to support them through this crisis, which has been devastating for Quebec.
Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Joliette.
With regard to the delay in the agreement for another month, thus postponing its implementation to November 1, and given the consequences of not having loan guarantees, is there an indication of the number of companies in Quebec that run the risk of going bankrupt or closing their doors?
[Interjection]
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, several companies are in trouble at present. Take Tembec, for example, where we are talking about several thousands of jobs.
We already know that the industry has lost a tremendous number of jobs. That is why the government was asked this week to advance a certain percentage of the duties illegally withheld by the Americans and to not wait for the agreement to be implemented.
We are talking about the postponement of the implementation from October 1 to November, but I have been told by many people that it could be postponed to December 1, 2006. 
The government had promised to pay most of the duties illegally withheld by the American authorities before Christmas. I hope they will keep this promise, whether or not the agreement is implemented.
We know how much money was withheld by the Americans. Every company knows the amount. We may not know the details but the government could easily advance 50% of the duties withheld by means of a mechanism provided for in Bill C-24, the purchase of the rights to these duties by Export Development Canada in exchange for payment of refunds to companies.
I wish to thank my colleague once again, because his question allowed me to make this additional and, I believe, very important point. The Conservative government cannot just ignore the situation and wait for the implementation of the agreement to assume its responsibilities.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think I understand the logic behind the Bloc's position to support Bill C-24. I clearly do not agree with it but, as I understand the Bloc's logic, it is that if we do not support Bill C-24 and put this really distasteful deal into place, companies like Tembec, the corporate side of it, will suffer further casualties in the way of bankruptcies and closing plants, and, obviously, the workers in that industry will continue to be negatively impacted.
 I want to put this question to him in all honesty. Given what has happened in the last month or so, where corporations across the country have made it clear that they will not drop their lawsuits, that they will continue to pursue those lawsuits in spite of that being a precondition of this agreement going into place, should the Bloc not be looking at the alternative of bringing in government action on this side of the border to support the industry, to support the workers to tide them through this period of time until we can finally enforce all the orders, the determinations and the decisions that have been made against the U.S. side on this? Is the strategy just not wrong? 
[Interjection]
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, in the past, the opposition was unable to force the Liberal government to give the industry the help that it wanted—that we all wanted.
I remember that in 2003, my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and I proposed an assistance program that they did not follow up on. It is the same with the Conservatives. Since then, companies have been closing. I would like to end by listing some of those companies in the riding of Joliette: Scierie Guy Baril &amp; fils Inc. closed its doors or had to cut jobs; Les Bois Dumais Inc.; Les Bois Francs Benoît Inc.; I have already mentioned Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd.—Louisiana-Pacific waferboard; Simon Lussier also closed its factory; Adélard Goyette &amp; Fils Ltd.; and Scierie Montauban Inc. We cannot wait any longer. 
The Liberals are, in large part, responsible for the current situation. I have another full page of companies that have had to close their doors or cut jobs over the past few months.
Personally, I do not want to be responsible for further job losses. I am very aware that this battle is far from over and that Bill C-24 is just a token gesture of help given the magnitude of this crisis, which is affecting all regions of Quebec. I know that my colleagues are all working under the same constraints as I am. If a single person in Quebec had spoken up to say that we should vote against Bill C-24, things might have been different. However, nobody in Quebec spoke up to ask us. So, as proper defenders of Quebec's interests—
The Speaker: Statements by members. The hon. member for Crowfoot.

Statements By Members
Growing Alberta Leadership AwardMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud of one of my constituents, Acme, Alberta resident Doug Miller, who has won the annual Growing Alberta Leadership Award for community spirit.
Doug Miller provided leadership, communication, dedication and encouragement to his community. He was the constant guiding force in rebuilding the Acme Community Centre after it was destroyed by fire. Acme is a town of just over 600 people. Doug and his team rebuilt this $1.9 million facility debt free in only nine months.
Doug is sharing the credit for this award with the town of Acme, the Alberta Barley Commission and others on the team. They include: Jim Northcott, who did the fundraising: Phyllis Deines, who did the paperwork: Viv Hannah, who liaised with the construction crews: Jane Allen, who kept the website up and running; and Acme Mayor Glen Rieger, who played a huge part. All of these folks were directly involved, but the people of Acme raised the cash and exemplified the spirit it took to get the job done. 
This success story is a reflection of the passion and perseverance that rural Albertans have come to know in an industry that has known its share of obstacles. 
Congratulations, Acme and congratulations, Doug.
BulgariaMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in Parliament to speak to the fact that each year approximately 2,000 Bulgarian citizens apply for Canadian visas. In the past 15 years over 20,000 Bulgarians have immigrated to Canada.
However, there is currently no Canadian embassy in Bulgaria. As a result, citizens of that country are required to journey over 400 kilometres to Bucharest, Romania to arrange documentation. It is a 12 hour return trip. Clearly, this situation should be rectified.
We must show our support for the large number of Bulgarians wishing to make Canada their home. This Parliament must also recognize the needs of Bulgarian Canadians. We need to establish a permanent embassy in Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, as soon as possible.
I am now asking the Prime Minister to address these concerns. Bulgaria will join the European Union on January 1 and we should have a Bulgarian ambassador in Canada shortly.
Mascouche Art ShowMr. Roger Gaudet (Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw attention to the 18th annual Mascouche art festival whose theme this year is “Autumn Rendez-vous”.
Since 1989, this art festival has given gifted artists from various areas an opportunity to showcase their talent. It also gives the general public an opportunity to learn about the diverse forms of visual arts. The festival's guest of honour will be Mr. Jean-Guy Desrosiers, a talented Quebec artist who has been creating art for over 50 years.
I wish to congratulate Mascouche and its volunteers for this successful event which brings the attention of the entire province to the town and the Lanaudière region. 
I invite you to attend the art festival to be held October 7 to 9 in the Mascouche council chamber at the René-Lévesque centre and Le Prélude Secondary School. 
Liberal Leadership CampaignCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, we are learning today from the media that the ballots are being counted again from super weekend in Quebec. Let us see how super it was.
In the last convention the Liberal Party claimed 500,000 members. Now the party is claiming 200,000 members. The fascinating thing is when we look at the details in that story that only 10% of Liberals in Quebec even bothered to come out and support. When the Liberals are talking about a mandate of 30% for one frontrunner, 20% for another and 17% for the third, are we not talking about 3% of Quebec Liberals and 2% and 1.7%?
I ask myself why? It is because that party remains habituated to ethical lowballing. One leadership candidate is parachuting jobs into the public sector. There are two--count them, two--leadership candidates who are signing up the dead. And don't get me started on kiddygate.
What I would like to say is that the nation is watching and what are they seeing? They are seeing the ethical floaters in the Liberal toilet that just will not go down no matter how much they claim to flush.
Sight First CampaignMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am a Lion and proud of it. Yes, I am member of the Teulon and District Lions Club, a community-minded service organization.
Today I want to draw attention to the Lions International Sight First campaign. I am wearing a purple and yellow band that recognizes the Lions campaign to help others see.
Lions are recognized worldwide for their service to the blind and visually impaired. This service began when Helen Keller challenged the Lions in 1925 to become “knights of the blind in the crusade against darkness”.
Today, in addition to their local community service, Lions operate the International Sight First program. Lions extend their commitment to sight conservation through countless efforts.
Lions provide thousands of people around the world with free quality eye care, eyeglasses, Braille writers, large print text, white canes and guide dogs, and operate an eye bank.
I encourage everyone to ask Lion members on how they can support our Sight First campaign. We serve so others may see.
New BrunswickHon. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, a new government took office in New Brunswick. The people of New Brunswick are excited with Premier Graham's new approach to government, a can-do approach, a government committed to improving the economy of our province.
Within hours of assuming office, the new premier fulfilled several of his campaign promises: financial assistance to students, assistance for seniors, a removal of part of the excise tax on gasoline, and moneys for the Saint John harbour cleanup.
Yesterday in Saint John, New Brunswick, the Irving Group announced that they were studying the building of a new refinery with a cost of $5 billion. It would make Saint John, New Brunswick the centre of energy for eastern Canada and the eastern seaboard in the United States.
 Yes, New Brunswick is now led by an aggressive, dynamic premier. He will build a new New Brunswick. With it, he needs partnering with other groups. I am sure he will work with all interests to improve the province of New Brunswick and its economy.
FijiMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 24 and 25, 2006, the government of Fiji will be hosting the 37th session of the Pacific Islands Forum in Nadi.
This important gathering brings together leaders of the Pacific nations to address a range of issues of common concern, including environmental issues, economic underdevelopment, promotion of democracy, and anti-money laundering.
Fiji will be hosting the Pacific Islands Forum at a time of renewed hope in the country. The recent democratic elections are ensuring the participation of different stakeholders in Fiji's political life. Local parties and ethnic communities, indigenous and Indian, are working together to build a Fiji that is democratic, tolerant and prosperous.
As one of Fiji's partners in the Post-Forum Dialogue of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Commonwealth, Canada encourages the continued strengthening of democracy in Fiji.
Ariane SanterreMarcel Lussier: Mr. Speaker, Ariane Santerre, an athlete from Brossard, is a determined young girl. All summer she trained with members of her club, twice a day, and the results were soon evident.
At the beginning of August, she and her team won the gold medal at the Quebec canoe-kayak championships held at the Notre-Dame Island Olympic venue. Three weeks later, at the Canadian championships, Ariane's team won the silver medal in sprint canoe-kayak, in the highly specialized war canoe category. Ariane has proven talent and determination given that she has been involved in the sport for barely a year.
She has distinguished herself in this demanding sport and was able to win the gold medal with her perfect technique. 
I would like to pay tribute to the courage, determination and intelligence of this 17-year-old athlete, Ariane Santerre.
Combat Wounded MedalMr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, recently, Corporal Bruce Moncur, one of eight current Essex-Kent Scottish in Afghanistan, became the first soldier from our region wounded in our effort against global terrorism. After two brain surgeries, the corporal's injuries have left him struggling to remember names. Corporal Moncur's name is one we will not forget for his service to our communities in Essex and to Canada.
While saying thanks to our combat wounded is important, we can do more.
LaSalle resident Murray Sinnott has begun a campaign to see our wounded veterans and soldiers receive an official medal. The Crimson Maple Leaf, as he calls it, would be an enamelled crimson maple leaf set against a white enamelled background, to replace the current blue-gold braid limited to the dress uniforms of those wounded in combat.
Our Essex-Kent Scots, Canadian Forces, and veterans were all willing to spill their blood for the life and freedom of others. I call on members of this House to support the Crimson Maple Leaf medal to honour our combat wounded.
Robert BourassaMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October 2 marked the tenth anniversary of the death of the 22nd Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa. I had the privilege to know that great man, and that is why I want to pay tribute to him today by reminding this House of some of his greatest achievements.
In 1970, Robert Bourassa led the Liberal Party in Quebec to victory in an election that made him, at the age of 38, the youngest premier in the history of Quebec.
The father of the James Bay hydroelectric projects, Robert Bourassa developed the renewable, non-polluting hydroelectric resources in northern Quebec. A great democrat, he promoted access to health care for all Quebeckers by supporting health insurance reform.
A great Quebecker and a great Canadian, Robert Bourassa worked his whole life to win recognition for Quebec's distinct character, while strengthening Canadian unity.
By commemorating him in this House, we are recognizing his outstanding contribution and clearly saying that without him, Quebec would not have become what it is today.
Aboriginal AffairsMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 8, 1971 the Federal Court of Appeal passed a ruling on the issue of matrimonial real property rights for Indian women on reserve and helped to set aside a section of the Indian Act that had disrupted the lives of first nation women and their families. 
Jeanette Corbiere Lavell, a first nation women's rights activist, married a non-Indian man in 1970 and lost her official identity as a status Indian. Ms. Lavell challenged the Indian Act on the grounds of gender discrimination since Indian men did not lose their status if they married non-Indian women. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in favour of Ms. Lavell. 
The courageous efforts of this woman led to the repeal of this section of the act in 1985 as part of historic Bill C-31. 
We must exercise special care in reviewing and revising laws that are more than a century old to better reflect the practical conditions and needs of today that affect the lives of first nations people.
AfghanistanDawn Black: Mr. Speaker, last night the NDP held a non-partisan round table discussion on Canada's role in Afghanistan. The event was attended by a number of my caucus colleagues, including our leader, and hundreds of concerned Canadians. It was standing room only.
Ironically, early in the day the Liberals and Conservatives in the other place issued a report which blasted Liberals and Conservatives in this chamber for their failure to have answers on Canada's current mission in Afghanistan. The report pointed to the failings of the government to explain: What is the purpose of this mission? Is the mandate clear and realistic? Can the success of the mission be measured and how? These are the very same questions the NDP has been asking. They are the very same questions Canadians are asking.
The Prime Minister got it wrong in Calgary this morning. The price of leadership in the world and the price of moving forward is not measured by the number of casualties Canada endures. Rather, it is measured by its efforts to bring about enduring peace, not enduring war.
Post-Secondary EducationMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week a group of committed student leaders from across the country travelled to Ottawa on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Students to raise awareness of a number of pressing issues concerning post-secondary education in Canada. 
The students I met with spoke about the troubling reality for students on the accessibility issue for Canadian youth due to rising tuition costs. The previous Liberal government had committed to a 50% cut to tuition on the first and final years of post-secondary study. 
For many Canadians, education is the necessary means to break out of poverty and into a better life. Education is an investment in the future of our children. Therefore, Canada must commit to the principle of accessible education for all Canadians.
The other deeply troubling issue for students is the cuts by the minority Conservative government to the summer career placement program. Fifty per cent, or in other words, 22,000 placements have been eliminated. Again, this program was an investment in our great country.
I ask all the hon. members in the House to join me in commending the Canadian Federation--
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ahuntsic.
Status of WomenMrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 2006, the labour and justice ministers informed the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that the government was refusing to legislate on pay equity. On September 25, 2006, the Conservative government announced that it not only was cutting more than 30% from the budget of Status of Women Canada, but also eliminating the court challenges program, which is the only means women have to assert their constitutional rights to equality.
Yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women confirmed that she was cutting funding for advocacy by women's groups. Yet on January 18, 2006, the Prime Minister promised in writing to “support women's human rights and...take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations”.
Today, we know that the Prime Minister deceived the women of Canada and Quebec on January 18, 2006.
LiteracyHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is Thanksgiving weekend. 
Unfortunately, Canadians have nothing to thank the government for regarding literacy programs after it cut $17.7 million. The government has taken away the rights from those individuals who want to better themselves in society by hacking their programs and still boasting about a $13 billion surplus which was given by the previous Liberal government. 
Residents in Newfoundland and Labrador are not going to succumb to these cuts. They are making their voices heard through the information highway. Beginning in Newfoundland this morning an email campaign called the “Wave for Literacy” will be launched and will sweep right across this country. Letter writers have been asked to send a j-peg file to the Prime Minister and members of the government to voice their concerns on the recent cuts. 
Funding for literacy programs helps these individuals in many ways. It promotes strong self-esteem, confidence and purpose in fulfilling their personal goals. We know the literacy rate in this country is important. We need to strengthen it. Such programs as York region literacy in my riding deserve our voice and our support to stand up for them and their rights.
The Liberal Party supports literacy.
AfghanistanMr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages announced that Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency, would allocate $5 million to immunize over seven million children in Afghanistan. These funds will be allocated to the World Health Organization and UNICEF as part of the global polio eradication initiative. This initiative seeks to eliminate polio so no child will ever again suffer permanent polio paralysis.
The conflict in southern Afghanistan has hindered vaccination of all children, resulting in a resurgence of this disease, especially in Kandahar and Helmand provinces.
During his visit to Canada, President Karzai requested Canada's assistance in helping to eradicate polio from Afghanistan. Canada heard the call and acted swiftly.

Oral Questions
Government ProgramsHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite diversionary tactics, careful packaging, warm and fuzzy language and all its efforts to muzzle itself, the true nature of the right-wing government is dribbling out. Ideological zealots are planted in key positions. Secret legislation is planned to undermine the charter, judicial independence is devalued, access to the courts for low income Canadians is blocked and federal funding for the underprivileged is cut off.
How is this meanspirited attitude consistent with the values the vast majority of Canadians have cherished for generations?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find that richly ironic, coming from a member of a cabinet that cut health care for Canadians by $25 billion. Talk about meanspirited.
This week those members criticized the government for having decided that a particular dance festival was not an efficient use of money, but they found money for that. They did not find $25 billion for health care, which they cut out of our health care system.
The opposition House leader should apologize for the meanspiritedness of the Liberal government.
Government AppointmentsRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we raised the transfers for health care to the highest level ever in Canadian history.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a defining characteristic of our country, much valued by the vast majority of Canadians. However, appointees of the minority government do not share that view, like the chief of staff to the Minister of the Environment. He attacks the charter and the judiciary. He argues for discrimination and against tolerance. He labels those who disagree as Nazis, like “Adolf Hitler and his bunch”.
Would the government at least take this opportunity to disavow that former Conservative candidate?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what I disavow is the arrogance of the Liberal Party, which thinks it has a monopoly on virtue.
 It was a Conservative government that introduced the Bill of Rights. Conservative prime ministers led the international fight against apartheid. The first woman cabinet minister was a Conservative. The first Chinese Canadian member of the House and the first Muslim member of the House were Conservatives. This party brought about a redress for the Japanese internment which was instituted by a Liberal government, and a redress for the Chinese head tax. 
We will not take any lessons on human rights from the party of the War Measures Act.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the lesson from the head tax is that trampling on human rights is never acceptable, not 100 years ago and not today.
The focus here is precisely and undeniably on the chief of staff for the Minister of the Environment. His intolerance is broadly published and unmistakable, and now he is heading up the minister's office in charge of the government's most important policy file. 
The House deserves an answer. Does the government agree or disagree with this individual's intolerant views?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the opposition House leader could tell us whether he agrees with comments made by members of his backbench, who share many opinions with the person that he has cited.
The opposition House leader ran for Pierre Trudeau in 1974, four years after the Liberal government had brought in the War Measures Act, a violation of Canadian civil rights. 
This is a party with a tradition of defending human rights, of defending diversity, both here and abroad. We are proud of that tradition. We will take no lectures from the Liberal Party when it comes to human rights.
The EnvironmentPablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, during an important vote this week, the House reiterated its desire to support the Kyoto protocol. In a panic, the Prime Minister thought it was more important to go see a hockey game. In his absence, the Minister of the Environment, surrounded by her team of right-wing cheerleaders, voted against Kyoto. 
The Kyoto protocol is an international law and Canada is bound by that law. By voting against Kyoto, the minister sent a message to the entire world that her government would break that law.
Is intentionally breaking the law what the new government is all about?
Hon. Loyola Hearn (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for a number of years the former Liberal government talked about Kyoto and did absolutely nothing. We are the reverse of that. We are doing something and doing very little talking. That is the way to get things done.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as always, the Minister of the Environment is swimming in contradictions. She says she wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but she has no targets. She says she wants to act quickly, but she has no implementation schedule. She says she wants a made in Canada plan, but she consults with George Bush. She says she had a plan, but now she has lost it.
If the minister has no targets, no implementation schedule, not even a plan, why does she not just admit that she feels the same about climate change as she does about Quebec: she just does not care?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, we all know what a breath of fresh air the new environment minister was when she came into the House. If she can clean up the air in the House compared to what we had, is it not only fair that we give her time to clean up the air in the country?
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are new revelations about Commissioner Zaccardelli's management of the Maher Arar case. After acknowledging that the evidence against Maher Arar was incorrect and that he was convinced that Mr. Arar was innocent, Mr. Zaccardelli did nothing and left Mr. Arar to rot in a Syrian prison. In committee, he suggested that he informed his political superiors, but all the former ministers are saying the opposite. 
Does the Minister of Public Safety not agree, in light of these disturbing facts, that it is time to call for Commissioner Zaccardelli's resignation? 
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her important question. She raised some very disturbing revelations that are part of Justice O'Connor's report, a report that is 1,400 pages long.
The government has accepted the 23 recommendations made by Justice O'Connor. We are in the process of working on all of them. Discussions are being held with Mr. Arar to reach an agreement that is worthy of him and fair to him.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, in committee when we asked Commissioner Zaccardelli whether he informed the ministers, he made reference to dates, suggesting that information sessions were held with the ministers. We have a serious problem: the RCMP refuses to provide these dates, and all the former ministers maintain these meetings never took place. Conclusion: Zaccardelli lied to the committee.
What is the minister waiting for to fire him?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was clear: the government has confidence in all RCMP officers. Obviously we are quite concerned about the injustice and tragedy Mr. Arar experienced. That is why we accepted all the recommendations in Justice O'Connor's report. We are working on all these recommendations. 
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to reassure us, Commissioner Zaccardelli says that corrective action has been taken and that raw data is no longer sent to the United States. Yet we have learned that unprocessed information is still accessible to American authorities, since they attend RCMP meetings before the information is verified. Thus, there is no guarantee that the information used by the FBI is reliable and that what happened to Mr. Arar will not happen to someone else.
Does the Minister of Public Safety not feel that Zaccardelli's resignation is now imperative, since he has lost all credibility?
Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to a report that came out recently. RCMP officers and foreign agencies meet regularly. That is part of international policing, and it does occur.
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, despite Commissioner Zaccardelli's claims, it is clear that he failed to put in place the filters and safeguards he had promised in order to prevent arbitrary treatment such as that suffered by Maher Arar. Nothing has been corrected. The proof is that unverified information is still used at joint meetings of the FBI and RCMP.
Given everything that has gone wrong, why does the minister not demand the commissioner's resignation?
Dave MacKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there have been changes. There are 23 recommendations in Mr. Justice O'Connor's report and those are being followed up. There are regular meetings between members of the RCMP and foreign police agencies taking care of international security issues.
Water QualityHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today was like the worst nightmare of a parent on report card day. 
The Government of Canada was given a failing grade by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund when it comes to its quality of water, and not only that, it was the only government to receive that failing grade. This is six years after Walkerton and we still do not have in place regulations that are firm and guaranteed by law. 
We do not want to hear another tired old lecture about the failure of the Liberals, about Kashechewan or about legislation they pulled back.
 When will the government get serious about cleaning up the water for Canadians?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we have been serious about cleaning up the environment, the water and the air of Canadians since we were sworn in last February. 
The Minister of the Environment and the government have undertaken important steps in this regard. We brought in the transit pass credit to allow for more mass transit and we have increased incentives for renewable fuels. The minister will be tabling shortly in the House Canada's first clean air act. Those are just the first steps of Canada's new government.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, let me just be clear about what being serious is here on water. Doing absolutely nothing apparently is what the government defines as being serious. It has failed to prevent the scandalous water situation on first nations communities where the health of these people is being threatened each and every day. Absolutely nothing has been done.
 What about bottled water? The Conservatives continue to allow the bottled water industry to self-regulate, despite high levels of lead and bacteria, and absolutely nothing is being done. Voluntary guidelines will not prevent another Walkerton. Legislation will. When will we get it?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this government has announced a major investment in water quality for first nations peoples to try to fix the problems that were created under 13 years of Liberal neglect. 
With respect to bottled water, I can tell the hon. leader of the NDP that bottled water has an excellent safety record. No water-borne disease outbreaks have been associated with the consumption of such water in Canada. Health Canada, in collaboration with the CFIA, is reviewing the existing regulations and policies to further enhance consumer protection.
The EnvironmentHon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment attempted to undermine Kyoto's clean development mechanism by misrepresenting the views of Daphne Wysham from the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.
 In a communication to Elizabeth May, Ms. Wysham said that she was a staunch supporter of the clean development mechanism. Ms. Wysham said that she was horrified that the minister represented her opinion of the mechanism so badly.
Will the Minister of Fisheries ask his colleague to withdraw her remarks and apologize to Ms. Wysham whom she so badly misrepresented?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, members of the party opposite certainly are experts on misrepresentation. It is amazing how they can take little bits and pieces out of context and try to blow them out of proportion. Nobody in the House or in country can take the stand that our Minister of the Environment has in relation to cleaning up the environment in this country. We should be very proud of that.
John Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, in her efforts to destroy the Kyoto protocol, the Minister of the Environment is simply denying the facts.
Yesterday, she did not properly convey Daphne Wysham's remarks. She allowed her department to post on its web site misleading information regarding global warming. She also repeatedly fails to attend international meetings on Kyoto.
When will she finally admit that her real goal is to sabotage the Kyoto protocol? When will she apologize to Daphne Wysham?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, let us see what the environment commissioner said. She actually said: 
 It has become more and more obvious that Canada cannot meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, instead of decreasing, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have increased by twenty-seven percent [during the term that these people were in power]. 
In 13 years from now, I think we will have a much cleaner environment in this country thanks to the present environment minister.
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, before the environment committee, the  Minister of the Environment said that before the Conservative government could do anything on climate change, a clean air act was needed. However, we already have some of the toughest and most efficient environmental laws in the world: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A new bill would take five years before it could be put into place.
What is so deficient about CEPA? Could the minister name one thing in her bill that cannot be done under CEPA? Why does the government prefer delay over action?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of good legislation in this country but we also have a lot of legislation that just does not work.
The government will soon be tabling a new bill and perhaps the member will wait until then to ensure, collectively, with all his colleagues in the House, we can pass good legislation that will do the job that the Liberals failed to do in 13 years.
Mario Silva: Mr. Speaker, we do not need new legislation to beef up monitoring and enforcement, we just act. We do not need a new bill to strengthen CEPA.
Why does the minister want to waste five years putting together a new bill when CEPA already gives her every possible tool she needs to act?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, it just shows how far out of touch the hon. members really are. Of course we do not wait for new legislation to act. If they followed what the minister was doing, they would see improvements every day.
What we need legislation for is to have a concrete framework that cannot be changed by hon. members opposite should they ever, 20 years from now, get into power again.
TransportMrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were surprised to learn that Transport Canada is investigating the journalist who revealed weaknesses in the Montreal airport's security system.
Rather than investigate the journalist who brought these flaws to light, does the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities not think that his department would be better off investigating the problem itself?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
As we all know, allegations were made in the Journal de Montréal. I asked my officials to verify the allegations. As part of the verification, we are trying to communicate with the journalist who reported the information. This is standard procedure for airport protection and for our security measures everywhere. That is why we need the information.
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I will give another example of inconsistency. At the port of Montreal security is deemed so important that containers declared empty are not checked and security agents busy themselves searching the lunch boxes of the dock workers.
Although security problems are known to exist, containers are not inspected and excessive emphasis is placed on the workers. The authorities are missing the mark.
What does the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities intend to do to bring the authorities at the port of Montreal in line?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, for my colleague's information, she should know that Montreal's port authority acts entirely independently. Nonetheless, as far as security is concerned, and as mentioned yesterday in an FTQ news story, nearly $900 million in five years has been invested to rework and enhance the security of our ports. In that vein, we must recognize that this work has been done and, in this case, I think this is a matter that—
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
AgricultureMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the spring, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food did not dare confirm rumours that Quebec would receive only $50 million of the $950 million the government had promised in improved farm income support. We would remind the minister that the Government of Quebec, through the Financière agricole, was already using the proper method to calculate inventories and that it therefore should not have been penalized for exercising sound management.
Can the minister justify why Quebec is not receiving its fair share in this case?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his concerns.
I can assure him that farmers in Quebec now have a government that, unlike the previous Liberal government, cares about their situation and the situation of all farmers across Canada.
We recognize that some agricultural sectors in Quebec are facing serious problems. Farm payments are based on need, and I can assure farmers in Quebec that the province will receive its fair share.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the minister promised Quebec a fair share, and we are still waiting for it. Last week, the hon. member himself told this House that there would be money. I am still waiting, and producers are still waiting.
Last spring, the minister said, “In the case of the retroactive fixing of the CAIS program, the Quebec government has already paid out its share”. He also stated that, in his opinion, Quebec “had a better system in place than the Liberal program, which had flaws”. 
The minister's way of paying us back is to give us $50 million out of $950 million.
What led the minister to conclude that Quebec should receive only 5% of the funds when it accounts for nearly 18% of Canada's agricultural activity?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer. Farm payments in Quebec are based on need, and I can assure farmers in Quebec that the province will receive its fair share.
We are going to deliver real results for farmers and farm families in Quebec.
The EnvironmentMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to use George Bush's line, “We won't cut and run”. At the UN he stressed the importance of upholding Canada's international commitments.
I would like to know how the Prime Minister reconciles that principle with his dogged determination to cut and run on Kyoto. Does the government not recognize the contradiction or is the real issue that since George Bush approves of his intention to kill Kyoto, it is okay to turn our back on the UN?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, everybody is well aware of the role that Canada plays at the UN. In fact, Canada is one of the most respected countries there.
During this present week, a number of environmental issues are being discussed, certainly one of which is dealing with bottom trawling. One will find that, like any other environmental issue, Canada is front and foremost with a very sensible and sound approach that is supported by most of the nations in the world.
Francis Scarpaleggia: It has been confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that the environment minister has joined the long list of Conservatives who have misled Canadians.
On Tuesday, at a meeting of the environment committee, the environment commissioner said, “The one thing I want to clarify is that there was no commitment anywhere where the previous Liberal government was planning to buy hot air”.
Will the minister apologize for repeatedly misleading Canadians?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that and we all fully understand that. There is certainly no need at all for the Liberals to buy hot air because they have plenty of it as it is.
Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Minister of the Environment repeatedly single out the auto sector in Ontario as the bad guys on climate change. The minister has also said that she does not really care what goes on in Quebec.
There is no mention of a cross-Canada approach or what part other sectors or regions will have to play in the fight to reduce greenhouse gases. It is no secret that one of the biggest areas for greenhouse gas emissions are the oil sands.
What will the minister do to ensure that Canada adopts a balanced and fair approach across all regions of the country to address climate change?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members have been complaining all morning about nothing happening in relation to climate change. They know full well that in order to change this country in relation to our environmental structures, after having taken over from the party opposite, it takes time, it takes planning and, most of all, it takes consultation with the stakeholders involved.
The minister has met with several of them and is continuing to meet with them. That is the how we put together a long term plan that is supported by the partners in this country.
Roy Cullen:  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear there are a lot of meetings.
The Minister of the Environment says that Quebec is not a concern to her.
The minister has said that apparently the economy of Ontario is not a concern for her either.
 For months the Conservatives promised a plan. Now they admit there is no plan, just an approach. When will the minister approach having a plan that is fair to all regions of the country?
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the commitments of this government were quite clear. We have lived up to every commitment we have made.
When the time comes, I will say for my hon. colleagues, they will see legislation tabled of which all of them should be very proud, because instead of reacting and spending billions of dollars to get nowhere, we are developing a plan, an approach and an agenda with the stakeholders in this country which will be legitimate, which will be solid and which will deliver results.
AgricultureMr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, following the discovery of the cyst nematode on a Quebec farm, the United States has banned imports of potatoes and other edible plants from the whole province. The entire Quebec industry is seriously affected.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food  tell us what is being done to reopen the border and help this important Quebec industry?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, this morning I spoke to the Quebec agriculture minister, Mr. Yvon Vallières, to advise him that Canada and the United States had reached an agreement to lift the temporary restrictions that the United States had placed on certain Quebec products.
On January 23, Canadians voted for change, including change for agriculture, and for the betterment of Quebec agriculture. Once again, it is this Conservative government that has obtained concrete results for Quebec farmers.
National DefenceCharlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, this past week emergency response teams from Ontario were shocked to learn that the Minister of National Defence had axed support for the search and rescue initiative in Ontario. This program is vital for providing our emergency teams the tools they need. 
Get this: he axed the funds for Ontario because the submission was a single day late even though the defence department knew that Ontario's Queen's Park had been shut down by a virus on that day.
What a parsimonious, pinheaded, paltry excuse for leadership. Why is this minister playing games with the health and safety of Ontario residents?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will ignore all those personal attacks. I had better watch what I say on my opinion of that member.
There is no cut in search and rescue. Search and rescue carries on in Ontario. What we are talking about is a small fund of $8 million nationally that is allocated each year to provinces that have worthwhile projects that can improve search and rescue.
The issue for Ontario is still open. I am waiting for a meeting with the Ontario officials to resolve this. The member from the party opposite should get his facts straight.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to expect the minister to take my word for it. I will quote Mr. Julian Fantino, who wrote the minister two days ago. I ask members to listen to what Mr. Fantino says about this program under this minister's watch. He talks about “the lack of flexibility and understanding” and the “conflicting directions”. The fact is that under this program emergency measures is so fed up that it is thinking of “withdrawing” from the program altogether.
I ask the minister, what has happened under his watch? Has the minister simply botched it? Or is he allowing this to go down in Ontario, risking the health and safety of Ontario residents?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, that member is making outrageous claims. There is no danger with respect to search and rescue. The search and rescue programs are going on efficiently throughout the country. Many citizens have been saved by our search and rescue organizations.
InfrastructureMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after two and a half years of negotiations and due diligence on the O-Train project here in Ottawa, the President of the Treasury Board has improperly summonsed and met with Siemens Corporation to “ask questions”.
The federal government has no contract with Siemens. Eight federal departments have signed off on the deal. Yet the minister demands details of a contract which he is not privy to and further demands of Siemens how best to delay a $654 million project. 
Will the minister please now explain this improper intrusion into municipal affairs?
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I look to Ottawa South for great wisdom. The wisdom from Ottawa South comes from a letter to the editor in today's Ottawa Sun. It states:
 Mayor Chiarelli's...commented on how it is weird that the federal government would want to study the LRT document. That's business...Whether it is a personal or business deal, all information has to be disclosed before a cheque is drawn up or refused. The old boys from the old days are not in power now, sir. 
That is from a constituent of Ottawa South, Ronald Hughes.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the minister has clearly crossed the line. As regional minister for Mike Harris, he fired the Ottawa Hospital board of directors and fired the school board trustees and then stacked the boards with well-known Conservatives who left massive deficits in both places.
A Liberal government ensured that O-Train federal funding be capped and the entire contract be delivered at a fixed price. The contract does not allow for cost overruns and it does not allow for political interference.
Can the minister now reveal what new liabilities he has exposed the federal government to by breaking Treasury Board rules?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to get a lesson on management and economic management from a Liberal named McGuinty. A Liberal named McGuinty is normally a synonym for broken promises.
That member opposite was part of a regime with no accountability. That Liberal member opposite was part of regime that had to repay the taxpayers a million dollars because it was stolen from hard-working taxpayers. 
I do not apologize for seeking greater accountability. That is the new regime in town. We will be an accountable government. Maybe the member opposite--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.
Forest IndustryMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our sawmills are shutting down on a daily basis, but this government continues to pat itself on the back for its softwood lumber agreement with the United States.
Because of sawmill closures in the upper Gatineau region, lumber from there will soon be sent to Abitibi. In Abitibi, even companies such as Tembec are announcing closures and layoffs. What is the government doing about this?
Is the Forest Industry Competitiveness Strategy put forward by the former government also going to be axed by the president of the Treasury Board?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on September 19 the Parliament of Canada overwhelmingly supported the ways and means motion to implement the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.
Time and time again, we have seen the Minister of Industry consulting broadly across the country, being extremely inclusive and consultative when it came to the softwood lumber industry, bringing the companies aboard, bringing the unions aboard, and speaking broadly about the long term lasting benefits to having this deal finally settled after this was botched for years by the party opposite.
That is what is happening. It is going to be in the best interests of industry. It will save billions of dollars and promote softwood in the United States and around the country.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, this government will not help the people who depend on the forest industry by swinging its chainsaw and slashing indiscriminately. The previous government's strategy involved allocating $1.5 billion to communities that depend heavily on the forest industry, as well as loans and repayable contributions. Even with that $1.5 billion, the government was running a surplus.
When will forestry communities begin to see some of this money? The minister must tell us.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the change in the implementation date to November 1 will not delay the return of money to exporters. For those companies who have signed on the EDC mechanism for return of deposits, the schedule to put cash in their hands remains within six to eight weeks of the original implementation date, which is October 1.
For the Liberals to suggest otherwise is irresponsible fearmongering. They should know that the return of these moneys is not affected by the extension.
Older WorkersMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development stated yesterday that the plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois to assist older workers who are victims of massive layoffs would result in all older workers being taken out of the workforce. The Bloc Québécois is not proposing an early retirement scheme but rather a program to help workers who have difficulty re-entering the workforce in order to bridge the time between the layoffs and retirement.
Given the new reality in the work world, does the Minister agree that such a program has become a necessity?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we as a government do value older workers in this country. That is why, unlike those others, we are trying to help them get back to work. We committed to conducting a feasibility study that would look at long term solutions for people affected wherever they are in this country if they are of a certain age. 
We do, however, unlike the party opposite, believe that we need to try to take advantage of this tremendous talent pool. That is our primary objective.
France Bonsant: Mr. Speaker, after leading us to believe that her department was working on an income support program for older workers, the minister has not delivered the goods and has confirmed, with this delay, that the workers' expectations will not be met.
When will the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development realize that what is needed is a program that would apply immediately to all regions and all sectors—particularly the forestry, clothing and textile sectors—and that this is urgent.
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, we are about to launch a feasibility study that will help look at long term solutions. We are also evaluating alternatives for the short term in the meantime.
LiteracyMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the latest program cuts, the minority Conservative government has targeted some of the most disadvantaged people in Labrador. What was the latest casualty in its right-wing ideological war on progress? It was an organization called Partners in Learning that has helped countless adults improve their literacy skills.
Coincidentally, this is the very same organization the Prime Minister praised during his Labrador byelection photo op merely a year ago, but today this organization's meagre $40,000 budget is on the chopping block.
How can the government possibly justify this cut on the same day that it announced a $13.2 billion federal surplus? Will it now reverse these senseless cuts?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected this government because they wanted, for a change, a government that would respect taxpayers' dollars and deliver value for money on all its programs. That is why we have been reviewing our programs. 
That is why we are focusing our efforts, our energies and our dollars on programs that deliver real results, real results for real Canadians, not support for advocates. On the literacy program, we are going to focus on books, more books, not more bureaucrats.
National RevenueMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I understand the Ontario government is interested in taking advantage of the expertise and experience of the Canada Revenue Agency. I understand the province would like to have the CRA collect business taxes as well as personal taxes. If a deal is reached, I understand the services and efficiencies would be substantial for Ontario taxpayers.
I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if she could update this House on the negotiations with the province of Ontario regarding the business tax T2 collections.
Hon. Carol Skelton (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 13 years the Liberal government was unable to secure a corporate tax agreement with the province of Ontario. This new Conservative government has been working hard with Ontario and we are pleased to announce today that we have reached an agreement on the collection of corporate taxes with the province of Ontario.
The Canada Revenue Agency will now collect all corporate and personal taxes on behalf of the Ontario government. Once again, this government is delivering results where the Liberals could not.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's mad crusade to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board is not only devastating to the income of family farms, it will almost certainly kill the port of Churchill. It will have a devastating effect on the port of Thunder Bay and also as far as Prince Rupert.
Is the government aware that it is not allowed to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board by statute without a plebiscite of the farmers who are members of the Wheat Board? Is it aware that it is violating not only reason and logic, it is violating the very statute that created the Canadian Wheat Board by killing it without a vote?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP has become the handmaiden of the big city unions, but at one time it claimed to represent the little guy. It is unfortunate that those members have turned their backs on those common people once again.
We heard this week at the agriculture committee that maintaining the present system is costing farmers at least $200 million a year. The NDP has taken a position that it wants to deny farmers choice and deny them opportunity. We are going to work to give farmers that. We are proud of giving them those opportunities.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is no business case for destroying the Canadian Wheat Board. It is pure ideological madness. In actual fact, the government is doing the Americans' dirty work. There have been 11 separate trade challenges against the Canadian Wheat Board and it has lost every one of them.
The reality is this is a trade irritant to the Americans. They want it destroyed. In spite of all the empirical evidence that Canadian farmers are better served by the Wheat Board, the Conservatives intend to undermine it. How do they justify that? 
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the member can scream all he wants, but the reality is the latest Wheat Board survey shows that 55% of farmers want change. Sixty per cent of farmers in western Canada believe if they have change, if the Wheat Board has competition, that will improve the way they conduct their business.
We are committed to giving western Canadian farmers the same choice as farmers in the rest of the country. We think that is a good option for western Canadian farmers.
Status of WomenHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Michèle Asselin of the Fédération des femmes du Québec says she fears for the future.
The federation receives funding that allows it to make changes to discriminatory bills. Now that is what I call value for money.
The minority Conservative government decided that this work was not important. It changed the women's program and might stop supporting the federation.
Unless he wants to support discriminatory bills, why is the Prime Minister penalizing women?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I find it very surprising a member of that party would talk to us about supporting women. The previous Liberal government cut the women's program budget three times in the last ten years. Another member in the House said that study after study, report after report, had all come to the conclusion that not enough was being done.
We will be acting directly to affect the lives of Canadian women in every community.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during a recent Status of Women committee meeting, the member for Beaches—East York dismissed the important issue of human trafficking, referring to it as something that was really nice and sexy.
Canada was put on an international watch list for countries that dealt poorly with human trafficking. Within just months of being in power, Canada's new government adopted new measures that would help victims of human trafficking.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women please tell the House what other actions the government has taken to improve the lives of women?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, the question of my colleague gives me the chance to show the opposition the difference between just talking and real action.
The changes we have made in CPP will help senior women. The $370 million more for immigrant settlement centres will help immigrant women. Doing something about matrimonial property rights will help aboriginal women. Tougher laws and more law enforcement in our communities will make safer communities.
That is action. That will make a real difference.
Automobile IndustryJoe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, while we watch plant closings and auto sector jobs bleed to foreign markets, the industry minister and the government sit and do nothing.
It has taken the minister more than eight months just to call a meeting with the Canadian Auto Partnership Council. At the same time, the champion of the softwood sellout, the Minister of International Trade, has had enough time on his hands to set up the sellout of the Canadian auto industry, this time to South Korea.
As a Liberal, this minister promised Parliament and Canadians an auto policy, but never delivered. Now as a Conservative, he is finally delivering. The problem is, it is a sellout of the auto sector.
Will the minister drop the negotiations with South Korea--
The Speaker: The hon. the parliamentary secretary.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, there could be nothing further from the truth. CAPC is an important form for communication between different levels of government and the automotive industry. We are setting a meeting for October. 
Canada's new government recognizes the role the auto industry plays in the Canadian economy and in our communities. We met with them this week, and they are quite happy with the direction of the Canadian government.
Status of WomenMarlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the cuts and changes made by this minority Conservative government to the women's program also jeopardize funding for the YWCA and a project called the Table des groupes de femmes de Montréal.
Defending women's rights is not a waste of money or time, as this Conservative government would like to suggest.
Why do the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who should both be fighting for women's rights, refuse to admit this?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, we have to stop this narrative of victimhood. We as women and as Canadians do not see women as victims. We know they are leaders. We know they have aspirations. We want to give them the opportunities that they deserve.
Just by talking about it, we have not made much difference, but we will act. We will not stand by while international communities say we have not done enough. We are acting, and we will make a difference.
Points of OrderJohn Baird: Mr. Speaker, on a number of recent occasions in the House, opposition members have accused me of stating certain things, which are false.
On Thursday, September 28, the member for Oakville stated during question period, at page 3389 of the Debates:
 --the President of the Treasury Board...said that helping adults...to read was a waste of money. 
On Friday, September 29, the member for Halifax West stated during question period, at page 3434:
 --the Treasury Board president denied in the House that he ever said that helping adults learn to read was a waste of money. 
Later that same day during question period, the member for Saint Boniface stated, at page 3434 of the Debates:
 --the President of the Treasury Board described adult literacy as a waste of money. 
The member for Wascana then proceeded, on Thursday, October 5, to say:
 I have pointed out on occasion that there is both a written record and a verbal record on tape of those remarks. I was invited during question period to table that material. 
He went on to say:
 I am certainly prepared to table that recording of what he said, which perfectly verifies what has been alleged here in question period. 
These quotes can be found on page 3720 of the Debates.
Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny ever using the words “waste of money” to describe literacy programs.
In addition, I have had the opportunity to listen to the recording tabled by the member for  Wascana. The tape is very clear that I never used the words “waste of money” whatsoever in respect to literacy programs, or any other program.
I was very clear in the House yesterday when I said:
 What the member opposite alleges that I said that appears in today's Globe and Mail and aHansardppeared in on Friday, in fact I never did say and Hansard will back that up. 
I was clearly making reference to the quote from the member for Oakville, which appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail and which used the words “waste of money”.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for an apology here in the House from the members for Oakville, Halifax West, Saint Boniface and Wascana for deliberately misleading my words in an attempt to personally smear me and my reputation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table all the relevant documents.
 I know the member for Wascana to be an hon. member. The member for Wascana should stand in his place, correct the record and apologize.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday, the written record includes, among other things, the government's news release, when it took great pride in announcing its program cuts. Both the President of the Treasury Board and the  Minister of Finance were quoted at length in that news release. The headline of the news release, applying to all the cuts that were announced by the government, was that it was cutting waste. It referred to all those programs as wasteful. That is very clearly on the written record, in the words of the government's own news release.
Second, the words on the tape, as transcribed by the House, as reported by dozens of news media outlets across the country, make it very clear that the minister said that there was no value in trying to provide literacy services to adult Canadians. Those are his words on tape, recorded and filed in this House.
The Speaker:  Is the  President of the Treasury Board wanting to respond to what the member  Wascana said? If so, I hope we will avoid a debate. It sounds to me as though we are getting into one rather than points of order.
We will hear very briefly from the  President of the Treasury Board.
[Interjection]
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the member for  Wascana specifically said that he had a tape of me saying that. He tabled the tape before the House. The transcript is clearly available for all members. 
I beg the member  Wascana to search his soul, do the honourable thing, do the classy thing, and correct the record and apologize.
The Speaker: I think the points have all been made on this one. It is clearly a matter of debate and we will leave it at that.
The hon. member for Timmins--James Bay has another point of order he wishes to raise. We will hear from him.
[Interjection]
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, when I was asking the defence minister about his decision to axe the security rescue initiative fund, he said that I was making outrageous accusations that could not be verified. He doubted the veracity of the document I was referring to. 
I would like to table that document for the House because I think it is important. Far be it for me to suggest that the minister is not aware of documents that are within his own ministry. I do not want it on the record of the House, in Hansard, that I was not speaking accurately. 
I am referring to the letter dated October 3, 2006 to the Deputy Minister of National Defence, National Defence Headquarters, from Julian Fantino, Commissioner of Emergency Management, wherein he clearly states his frustration with the government's decision to cut funding for Ontario, and wherein he further states that we are finding this--
The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member is seeking consent to table the document, we do not need to hear all the details of the document. 
Does the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.

Routine Proceedings
Access to Information Act and Privacy ActMr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32.(2) I wish to table in the House two copies of Public Works and Government Services Canada's Access to Information Act and Privacy Act 2005-06 annual reports.
Criminal CodeHon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 15th report later this day.
[Interjection]
Gary Goodyear: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day now be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Sarnia—Lambton. The petitioners ask the government assembled in Parliament to take all necessary measures to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first is signed by nearly 700 constituents of mine requesting that Parliament raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. These petitioners support Bill C-22, the new Conservative government's age of sexual protection bill. 
The constituents are all from Alberta, including: Acme, Big Lake, Beiseker, Calgary, Camrose, Castor, Coronation, Consort, Craigmyle, Edberg, Erskine, Irricana, Hanna, Linden, Stettler, Three Hills and Trochu. I am sure I missed some towns.
Kevin Sorenson: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents of mine from Camrose, Ferintosh and Kelsey, Alberta.
The petitioners call on Parliament to investigate the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China, and specifically for Parliament to work toward the goal of convincing the Chinese government to allow the coalition to investigate the persecution of Falun Gong in China.
Jeff Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition representing dozens of residents in Essex and Windsor. The petitioners call on the House to reopen the issue of marriage in Parliament and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am moved with the concern expressed by members of my community, Whitewood and area, including Kipling, Oxbow, Alameda, Carnduff, Redvers, Frobisher, Lake Alma, Glenavon, Kenosee Lake, Glen Ewen and North Portal with respect to the issues they raise in their petition. 
They would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Canadians enjoy living in safe and secure communities, and believe that the safety of their children is a basic right. It is well known that from time to time young children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders and Canadians desire that we take steps to prevent such incidents from occurring. 
The petitioners call on the government to proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties to convicted pedophiles, make mandatory compulsory electronic or other forms of monitoring pedophiles upon release from custody, ensure compulsory public notification and movements of convicted pedophiles, and ensure that repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from my constituents in Northumberland—Quinte West. They call upon the federal Minister of Justice to amend the privacy act to allow more discretion in the release of information to families of deceased persons.
Rick Norlock: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of my constituents. They pray that the government assembled in Parliament take all measures necessary to immediately raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the municipality of Crowsnest Pass. This petition, signed by some 885 people, which is 14% of the population of the Crowsnest Pass, requests that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of the Environment reconsider the construction of a rail siding within the community of the Crowsnest Pass, and that the proposed new railway siding be relocated to an area outside of the populated communities of the Crowsnest Pass and away from existing wetlands and the Crowsnest River.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Points of OrderThe Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a point of order he wishes to raise. I will hear him now.
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). It is the government's view that an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to add a new clause to the bill should have been found out of order by the chair of the committee. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find that the amendment is indeed out of order.
As Marleau and Montpetit note on page 661-2:
 The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. 
The amendment in question added a new subsection to clause 2 of Bill C-14. It reads:
 Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. 
This amendment we suggest is inadmissible for three reasons. First, the amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill adopted by this House at second reading. As noted by Marleau and Montpetit at page 645:
 If the bill has already received second reading, the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend the bill contrary to its principle. 
 Speaker Fraser clarified this in a ruling on April 28, 1992. He said:
 The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be. 
The amendment would provide new powers and a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond what is provided in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which creates the board and limits the board's role to immigration and refugee matters but would not involve citizenship.
The principle of Bill C-14, as adopted by the House, was to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring them to be permanent residents. It was not to provide a new role for the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Second, the amendment is incomplete. As Marleau and Montpetit note on page 656:
 As well, an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules of which notice has not been given, or if it is otherwise incomplete. 
The Immigration and Refugee Board, to which the amendment proposes appeals be made, operates under the statutory authority of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not the Citizenship Act. 
Even though I believe the amendment to be outside the scope of the bill, the sponsor neglected to include further amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are necessary to make this amendment intelligible and operational, perhaps in attempting to move an amendment that would not be seen to be out of order on those grounds.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not provide for, and the amendment does not address, providing the Immigration and Refugee Board with the power to hear citizenship appeals, establishing potential grounds for appeals, specifying the relationship between appeals to the board and existing rights to judicial review, providing the board with the power to rule on the appeal, for example, by granting citizenship which the amendment's reference to an appeal process is meaningless.
These critical authorities are established in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for other types of appeals heard by the board and its divisions. Similar legislative provisions would be required for the board to identify its mandate and be able to make orders to resolve appeals of a citizenship decision.
Third and finally, the reason this amendment is out of order is that it requires a royal recommendation. On May 9, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled that a new purpose for an existing appropriation requires a royal recommendation: He stated:
 The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. 
What this means is that the royal recommendation is not only required in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in a case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered. Furthermore, on February 8, 2005, the Chair ruled:
 Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation. 
The same principle applies to amendments. Since the board does not currently deal with citizenship decisions, any existing royal recommendation for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act could not possibly cover this new purpose. 
Moreover, the addition of a new type of appeal hearing could not be implemented without additional public funds, for example, for more board members to hear cases of new policy and administrative resources to support these hearings. The amendment, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.
Given those three reasons, I submit that the amendment is out of order.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, that particular amendment, which was moved at committee, was moved by one of our NDP colleagues, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is not in the House today. We had no advance notice that this attempt on the part of the government would be forthcoming at this time. 
 I think it would only be fair to the member and, quite frankly, to the committee, Mr. Speaker, that you be given the opportunity to hear a contrary argument from what you just heard from the government. I would ask that you take no decision on this matter and that the member for Burnaby—Douglas be given the opportunity, when the House reconvenes after next week, to speak to this amendment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges on the same point?
Meili Faille: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 
I would add to the arguments of my NDP colleague that an appeal mechanism for citizenship already exists in the Immigration Act. A protection already exists.
We are asking that a clause—a clause we drafted in committee—be added in the bill introduced by the government. We voted on it and opposition parties agreed that this appeal section is necessary. It allows parents to file an appeal in the lengthy international adoption process when an error occurs. 
The government is proposing to remove this protection, which is necessary in citizenship cases. Given the way things are going these days—I am thinking about the Joe Taylor case and other citizenship cases currently before the tribunals—I think it is a fundamental right, particularly in an international adoption situation.
We can understand that parents are quite concerned about this situation. Parents' associations wanted this appeal provision.
I would like you to consider the NDP's request to wait until my colleague who presented this amendment is present in order that he too can take part in the debate so that we can hear all the arguments.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: It was my intention to hear the arguments.
There will be no problem arranging for the hon. member to make submissions on this, assuming he is here early on in the week we resume, because I will not be making a decision on this matter imminently. I will take it under advisement and I expect further submissions on the point in due course.

Government Orders
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak on the amendment to Bill C-24 which would have the effect, if the amendment were adopted by this House, to prevent the government from taking action to, in effect, sell out the softwood lumber industry in this country.
The length of time that Canada and the United States have been dealing with this issue almost boggles the mind. It heated up over the last four or five years, resulting in some very offensive tariffs by the United States against Canada and against this industry, tariffs and trade actions that have unanimously been shot down in every tribunal that the U.S. has gone to in order to justify their actions. The rulings have consistently been against the Americans and, I must say, to my own surprise as a lawyer, in their own courts.
It was always thought that Canada's position was absolutely solid before the WTO and under NAFTA, which the U.S. government and the U.S. forestry industry were not prepared to accept. However, there was almost a solid belief that if it ended up before the domestic courts of the United States that the Americans would prevail and that they would use those decisions or decision to justify their ongoing unfair trading practices with regard to softwood lumber between the two countries.
However, it came as a surprise when in June of this year the court in the United States ruled in Canada's favour and stated that Canada was not performing any improper practices in the softwood lumber sector and that the United States had no basis on which to levy these tariffs, none whatsoever.
It is also interesting, from the information that we have at this point from experts in the field, that the decision made can only be appealed once and that it is mandatory that the appeal be dealt with within 12 months.
Therefore, by June 2007 there will be nothing left for the Americans to contest. We will have closed every avenue in the courts, including their domestic courts, and Canada will have won in every one of the tribunals and courts.
In spite of that, we see, quite frankly, the unconscionable conduct by the Canadian government to negotiate a trade arrangement on softwood lumber that would see Canada faced with a reduction in the amount of money the Americans need to return to us, which is over a billion dollars, and a new protocol that would be to Canada's great disadvantage as there is no certainty in the arrangement. Our trade experts, who have studied the agreement and know the area well, have strong feelings that the agreement encompassed by Bill C-24 would not protect the industry on an ongoing basis.
The agreement would allow the parties to pull out. Because of the money that we will be leaving in the United States, over a billion dollars, it is expected that a good half of that will go to the U.S. softwood lumber sector and be used against us to mount additional challenges in the very near future.
The agreement buys us nothing in the way of certainty. It provides no sense of stability in the industry, to the companies or to the workers, and it leaves wide open the ability of the Americans to come after us again if we sign this agreement with them.
When we see the negotiations that have gone on by the Minister of International Trade, it begs the question of what it means for other sectors. I want to spend a minute or two on that because it has become very troubling for the auto sector, which is a major industry in my hometown, to see what has happened with the government, and that particular minister supported by the government, in negotiating the softwood lumber deal with the United States.
Will we be faced with the same kind of treatment, the same kind of wimpishness in the negotiations with South Korea that are going on right now, as we are faced with on softwood lumber with the Americans, and a willingness on the part of the government and the minister to trade off Canada's interests and, in effect, get nothing in return?
Our fears were enhanced when we saw the minister refuse to divulge information on the negotiations because a study was done by his department and he consistently refused to release it. Finally, another study, commissioned by the sector and by the CAW, the union in particular, showed what would happen to the auto sector in Canada if we were to enter into this trading agreement with South Korea. The effect would be quite devastating with regard to employment and to the traditional companies that have been producing cars in Canada. It would be very devastating to the auto parts sector with massive losses in all areas occurring in a very short period of time. 
When that study became public, all of a sudden the minister released his department's study and was extolling the virtues of the agreement based on the study. Although the study was very favourable, obviously couched in that way, it also showed that the auto sector would suffer in Canada. It would not be advanced at all and would, in fact, decline if we went ahead with the negotiations. If we were to sign a treaty with South Korea and put it into place we would begin to suffer.
The minister has been asked a number of times in the House why he would even consider continuing on with the negotiations? We have had nothing but blandishments and clichés about wanting trade but nothing about the merits of the agreement. 
The reason the auto sector's fear of the government and the minister is so high is that when we look at the softwood lumber deal and at the negotiations that the minister led and carried on, we then see the results that are so damaging to the softwood lumber sector right across the country. However, there seems to be a willingness, almost an obsession with going ahead with what is a very bad deal for the country. 
The NDP will be very strong on voting against Bill C-24 and supporting the amendment that would have the effect of turning this around and getting us out from under this agreement.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's dissertation and I share his concern about other industrial sectors across Canada being undermined by the government if we see the template for softwood being utilized.
What strikes me about this agreement was the necessity for haste. The fact is that the government wanted a quick and dirty deal with the photo op, the handshake and a political slogan at the end of the day. It needed it within the timeframe of what it thought would probably be a very short Parliament.
The long term interests of the entire country were put on the table. I will have to ask my colleague a question in terms of his experience with the auto sector. From what I know of the forestry sector, if a community like Red Rock looses its mill, what future is there in that community? It would be gone. It is the same with Ignace, Smooth Rock and Terrace Bay, the communities that have suffered. Their long term viability was put on the table and sold down the river and there are no alternatives.
I wonder if he has looked at the implications for this template of industrial relations with our biggest partner, which is simply to roll over and play dead anytime our biggest trading partner calls us from the Waco, Texas ranch and lays down the orders. Is he concerned about how this will play out in terms of the auto sector and other industries within our country?
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at this in terms of the forestry sector because it tends to be the dominant industry in smaller communities. It is totally dominant. 
I have the same experience in my community, which is a reasonably large city by Canadian standards, in terms of the dominance of the auto industry. Currently, because of this trend, because of the willingness of the government, not for sound, practical business reasons, but for ideological reasons to enter into these kinds of agreements that have such devastating impacts, we are extremely worried, because of NAFTA and the effect it has had on our community, about the loss of jobs.
The province of Ontario alone lost 200,000 jobs in the last five years in manufacturing. In my city there was a big meeting last Sunday with about 2,500 people. It was about the announcement of some more job losses form the Ford Motor Company. The fear is that because of these kinds of trade arrangements, we would lose somewhere around 2,000 very high paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, and at least five to six additional jobs for every one of those in the auto parts supplier section and in the community generally. That is just with that one announcement. We know another announcement will be coming a little bit later next year, and other ones could be coming. By 2010 to 2012, we could see a reduction of over 5,000 jobs just from Ford in my community. Multiply that number by five or seven and the total number is up to 25,000 to 35,000 jobs that we could lose, not to mention all of the families that go with those jobs.
In the forestry sector, a small community of maybe several thousand or a small town of 10,000 is affected. In my community, the effect is multiplied by those proportions. We have a great deal of fear, just as we have a great deal of fear of what the government will do to the Wheat Board and what the farming community will suffer as a result. We know what the government is doing with regard to not protecting the steel industry. It ripples through the entire economy.
It is time for us to stand up and take a position. That position is not to vote in favour of Bill C-24
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in what my colleague had to say pointing to what seems to be a worrisome trend. When we talk about the softwood lumber sellout, it is in the context of this broader pattern that seems to typify the Conservative government to date.
[Interjection]
Joe Comartin: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is driven by the ideology of the government. It has nothing to do with good, sound business practice; it is all about ideology. It is not fair trade. It is free trade, but it is not fair trade.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will begin where my colleague left off. It is fraught with hazards and pitfalls when we have a government that is driven by ideology more than reason and logic or a business case or some economic policy. If it is pure ideological zeal, the government is bound to make mistakes and it is bound to stumble into places it does not want to go.
I take my colleague's point that we are seeing a very worrisome pattern develop. In the first few months of this new Conservative government, we are seeing a trend of deep integration of not only foreign policy, defence and national security, but also this worrisome idea that we are expected to undermine, destroy and shred any competitive advantage that we might enjoy in any industry. For some reason, we are obligated to do away with any competitive advantage we might enjoy by virtue of the quality of our product, by virtue of our geography, or by virtue of the fact that we are blessed with certain natural resources. We are not allowed to enjoy that competitive advantage; we have to harmonize with the United States and give the Americans equal access even if it defies reason, logic, business sense, credibility, intelligence, or fair markets.
This is the irritating worrisome trend. The softwood sellout is perhaps the most graphic recent illustration that leads us to say this.
 It worried me when The Vancouver Sun published the details of a leaked letter that the Bush administration sent to the U.S. lumber lobby. In it the American administration confirmed the objective of this deal was to hobble the Canadian industry for at least seven years. That was the stated objective published in The Vancouver Sun, a right-wing newspaper. Do not take it from me; this is not some pinko paranoia; this is common knowledge.
The second worrisome thing is that fully $450 million of the $1.3 billion in illegal duties will go to grease the re-election wheels of the protectionist Republican administration. Canada's timber industry will be forced to subsidize the ongoing illicit attack on itself. 
I have never heard of anything like that. It borders on what I would call economic treason to fund our opponents, to fund the enemies of Canadian industry so that they can more effectively hobble us, hog-tie us and drag us down the hole that they are in, all of this with the explicit consent of the Canadian government, in fact driven by the Canadian government. The U.S. lumber industry has no better friend than the new Conservative Government of Canada, that much is clear. And there is more.
This softwood lumber deal is trade managed of, by and for the American lumber lobby, and get this. Here is the most mystifying thing. I do not know how the Bloc Québécois can hold its nose and support this deal. A supposedly sovereign nation has signed on to this unprecedented clause requiring provinces to first vet any changes in forestry policy through Washington, not through Ottawa but through Washington.
Those guys in the Bloc are sovereignists. Those guys supposedly can grasp the idea of a sovereign nation and the integrity and the freedom to chart their own course that that entails, but this deal, for the first time in history, obligates Canadian provinces to vet any changes in forestry policy, such as increasing cutting, reducing cutting, even stumpage and duty fees, with Washington.
People wonder why we are upset. Some of us are horrified. This is where it borders on economic treason. I hope they negotiated better than 30 pieces of silver for signing on to this. I hope they got 40, 50 or 60 pieces of silver. I hope they got a wheelbarrow full of dough for this sellout because that is how appalling it is.
We cannot talk about this softwood sellout in isolation because it is directly and integrally connected to another trade irritant. If this is a graphic illustration of the new Conservative government doing the dirty work of the American government and the American softwood lumber industry, there is another more graphic illustration before us. That is this mad crusade of the Conservative government to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence that a majority of Canadian farmers support the Wheat Board and that farm income is better off across the board because of the single desk Canadian Wheat Board.
There were 11 separate trade challenges by the American government against the Canadian Wheat Board and we won every one of them because we are right and the Americans are wrong. North Dakota farmers are asking if they can sell their wheat through our single desk because we get a better price. The dual marketing system being proposed by these guys on behalf of the American government so that they can handicap and cripple the Canadian grain industry, the single desk idea versus the dual desk idea, everyone who knows anything about the marketing of wheat knows that the dual desk idea is the demise of the Wheat Board; the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board is a dead, bankrupt Canadian Wheat Board.
Why? I will explain it in one simple sentence. If the initial offering price is higher than the market, there will be all kinds of deliveries but it will have to be sold at a loss. If the initial offering price is lower than the outside market, then there will not be any deliveries. There it is in a nutshell. 
That is why dual marketing is not going to work. That is why the Conservatives, through some ideological zeal, are deliberately trying to dismantle the Wheat Board in spite of reason, logic, the business case, all the empirical evidence. Let us hope they are aware of the collateral damage they are going to cause to the port of Churchill, the port of Thunder Bay and the port of Prince Rupert because that Canadian grain is going to be shipped south and mixed with American grain and we will lose the identity of our superior product.
The reason we get better prices is that our product is superior. The world wants good Canadian grain. They do not want it mixed with the secondary quality grain and marketed that way.
We are here to serve notice that the Conservatives are in for the fight of their lives if they intend to dismantle our Canadian Wheat Board without a fight. I tell them they are in for it. We are gearing up steam and the Canadian prairie farmer will win this fight and the new Conservative government will lose. I guarantee it.
It is a pattern that Margaret Atwood spoke to when she said that a beaver bites off its testicles when it is threatened. If this is true, then the beaver is certainly an apt symbol, if not for Canada then certainly for a succession of governments which, when faced with the ceaseless bullying of the Americans, carve off big chunks of the Canadian identity and offer it to their attacker. What kind of bargaining stance is that? That is not even a bargaining strategy. It is a disgrace.
I do not know who the government sends down there to bargain on our behalf but they come back with a pretty poor package. I have done some negotiating in my life as leader of the carpenters union. I would be ashamed of myself if that were the best I could do with all the resources the Government of Canada has to send down a bargaining team. It is like trading in the family cow for three beans, none of which actually sprout.
In this worrisome trend to do the Americans' dirty work, the government is forgetting one thing. It is forgetting that by statute it cannot dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board without a plebiscite, without a free vote of the member farmers. That is what the government is trying to sidestep, basic democratic protections that were built into the statute because they knew the enemies of the Wheat Board are legion and they are not going to go away.
The Conservatives and the Americans hate the Canadian Wheat Board, just like they hate public auto insurance, just like they hate medicare, just like they hate any collective action that might cooperatively advance its members. They are ideologically opposed to the little guys coming together and in unity gaining strength so they can protect themselves. It is anathema to Conservatives and to Americans. They are attacking a common sense solution.
Let us look back to the 1930s, before the Canadian Wheat Board, when some poor farmers were at the mercy of the robber barons, the grain barons. That is why--
[Interjection]
Hon. Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
Before the member gets back to the Regina manifesto, it is my understanding that we are here on the softwood lumber agreement, on an ill-advised amendment by the Liberal Party, and yet the hon. member is going on about the Wheat Board.
I just ask the hon. member to please direct his comments to the issue at hand.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ken Epp): Thank you for that point of order. I think it is well taken. The hon. member from Winnipeg will have to really hurry to get back to the point of the bill because he only has 40 seconds left.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to connect the two into a pattern. 
I will end with a simple quote to illustrate how Canada's timber industry is now forced to subsidize an illicit attack on itself. It is an article in the Globe and Mail quoting a senior government official warning that opponents should prepare themselves for the consequences of rejecting it. 
In other words, suggesting that if anybody rejects this the government will no longer help them in their court challenges. It will no longer defend the Canadian industry. It is a matter of take it or leave it. That is the kind of bullying tactics that have been raised by members on our side before, which is why we resent this deal. We condemn the government for failing to protect the interests of Canadians by agreeing to this deal. We condemn the Bloc Québécois for its 30 pieces of silver deal to support this thing. I hope it received a pretty good package for it because it sure sold out its own sovereign interests.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed by the logic or illogic of the New Democrat Party.
First, the hon. member, instead of talking about the softwood lumber agreement, went on at length about the Wheat Board. What surprises me about that is why the hon. member does not want western farmers to have the same freedom of marketing that we have in Ontario. I cannot justify that. I am an Ontario member of Parliament and I cannot justify not giving the same freedom to western farmers as farmers have in Ontario. There is no reason for that whatsoever. I am surprised he is not doing that.
With respect to the softwood lumber agreement, these are the facts. We have two countries that have come to an agreement on this, and it is not just Canada and the United States. I know the NDP members do not like the United States and they do not like to have anything to do with the United States. Nonetheless, it is our major trading partner and trade relationships between the two countries are very important to Canadians.
The two countries have agreed to the deal but we need to look at who else has agreed to it: the three largest provinces in this country which do not have Conservative governments. There are Liberal governments in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The three largest provinces with a softwood lumber industry all support this deal and the industry itself overwhelmingly supports it. Of course they support it in Atlantic Canada, they received an exemption.
Why is it that the NDP members think they are the only ones right and everybody else is wrong? Have they not figured out that this is what has to be done?
The hon. member said that he was a negotiator with the union. He must know, even if his colleagues do not understand, that every time an agreement gets made there has to be give and take on both sides. It cannot be all on one side, everything for everybody and nothing on the other side, because that is not how agreements are made. The hon. member should know that if he has been in negotiations. I appreciate that most of his colleagues have never had to make an agreement, but he should point out to them that there has to be that give and take.
Why does the NDP stand alone against everyone else on this great deal for Canada?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the inexplicable bargaining stance that Canada adopted when it set out to negotiate this deal. I will show members its bargaining stance because I know a bit about negotiating. 
The Conservatives' bargaining stance was on their knees. They were saying, “Please, please, leave us with our dignity. Leave us with something intact, please”. That was their bargaining stance. I am embarrassed as a Canadian that they came back with such a lousy package.
With what little time he has allowed me to keep, I would like to point out that we inexplicably threw away victories that were pending in the courts, not just in the free trade agreement panels but in the U.S. Court of International Trade. On April 7, it ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian softwood were illegal, just about the time those guys were down there rolling over, giving up and on their knees saying, “Well, we won the ruling, but we'll accept your last offer anyway”.
They announced publicly in the House of Commons the deadline by which they had to accept the deal. What kind of a negotiating strategy is that? Are they crazy?
Charlie Angus: Mr.Speaker, what we have is a court decision that these tariffs were illegal and this government comes into this House and asks the members of Parliament to stand and vote on a new tariff to replace an illegal tariff that would add even more to that tariff. The government then puts in a predatory clause to go after the companies that continue to stand up for their legal rights and collect even more tariffs.
 As well, we are being asked as members of Parliament to support the fact that the government has given away provincial resource rights to the United States. 
As well, it has brought in clauses that would allow the government to go after individual companies for the finances if they stand up.
Has the member ever seen a deal that is so bad? Not only did the government sell us out but it is acting in a predatory fashion against our own companies?
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: The amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is this is the second time a Conservative government has sold us out on this deal. In 1986 the GATT, the World Trade Organization's predecessor, issued a preliminary finding in Canada's favour on the legality of U.S. lumber duties, but the prime minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, chucked that out. He was so eager to sign the free trade agreement he threw that ruling out and aborted the appeal.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some concern about our sovereignty, not just on this deal but many other issues and files. Many people have talked about the softwood lumber industry only affecting the hinterland, but Bytown was built and formed on the lumber industry. I hate to think what my ancestors might be thinking if they were to see this deal. They would see we have sold our sovereignty down the river. We used to have a country, but we have sold it.
We have won every time we have challenged the Americans and they have challenged us. The government is using accusations of Liberal lawyers, which is tantamount to selling out by way of fighting. I do not understand the logic when we have won at every trade deal dispute panel. 
Another was NAFTA. There were aspects of that agreement with which we disagreed, but the most contentious and hardest fought part was the dispute settlement mechanism. If this deal goes through, we will be saying it is worth nothing, nada, rien. What we have shown by our acquiescence is that we do not have the fight in us any more. The dispute settlement mechanism and all the pieces in the trade agreement, with which the NDP had large problems, even the little pieces that would allow us to exert our sovereignty, are gone. They are blowing in the prairie wind. We need to take a look at this deal in light of that. We need support for our communities.
I was recently in Thunder Bay and I spoke to the people. I did not speak only to people who were supportive of the New Democratic Party. I spoke to mayors and councillors and to people living in the communities as well. These people basically were giving away their homes. They asked why the government was not there for them. They see the government giving $500 million to the other side to sharpen the guillotine. They see us putting our necks on the line. They are shocked, appalled and very angry. They hear the government say, on one hand, that it will stand up for Canada. On the other hand, they see it go to Washington and sell us out.
Canadians do not need members standing in this place saying that they are standing up for Canada. Canadians need another voice. They need to hear that we are here for their communities, that we are here to ensure that the people who built the country, communities and places like Ottawa and Gatineau will be honoured and that we will not sell them out. With this deal, we are selling out our ancestors. We are selling out the whole idea of what it was to have a sovereign country.
Let us talk about some of the problems in this deal. I will not have time to go over all of them because there are too many.
 The deal is based on the falsehood that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is subsidized, and we fought that in court. That was the argument of the Americans. That was thrown out not only from our side but from the American side as well. What does the government do? It basically says that the Americans are right, that we are subsidizing our industry. What is even worse it is giving the Americans money to fight us again.
The agenda is to take away our management system, which ensures we have a sustainable industry, unlike that in the United States where there is no sustainable industry. We are going to integrate our management system with theirs. That is the agenda, let us be real about this. That is the elephant in the room. The Americans would like us to adopt their management practices. Then we can take the whole industry, move it south and forget about having an independent voice vis-à-vis softwood lumber.
This deal gives away the $500 million. It provides $450 million in funds to Washington, which will turn around and use those funds at its own discretion. If that is not absurd, then I do not know what is. This deal puts unreasonable constraints on trade by applying punitive tariffs and quotas that hinder the flexibility of our industry. 
We need to be nimble, responsive and ensure that we have a sustainable economy, but that is gone because of this deal. When I go to Thunder Bay again, people are going to have a lot of questions about who is standing up for them. 
What is happening in these communities? People are putting for sale signs on their homes, asking for the best offer. They are moving, some out west to get jobs and some to Toronto. This is ripping communities apart and they are looking for help. This deal will not help them at all. In fact, it will make more communities fall apart.
The deal kills the credibility of NAFTA. It sets a bad precedent. It is really important for all Canadians to understand this. The deal is based on precedent. All the dispute settlement mechanisms have been built into agreement. We have put forward arguments, indicating that we are right and our arguments have been okayed by both sides. Internationally, Canada has been seen as being right. If we acquiesce to the other side, we are setting a precedent and sending a signal that we are not going to stand up for Canada.
We need to talk about the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs. One of the first files I dealt with when I was elected involved lumber workers who had been thrown out of work. Those workers did not go to other jobs in the industry. Many of them had nowhere to land. Sadly, that is the story across the country. 
This deal discriminates against Canadian companies. It also affects communities. Communities will not trust the government any more after it gave a blank cheque to Washington. People will probably look within their own communities for help because they cannot depend on the federal government. It has sold them down the river.They will try to find other ways to get help, and that is a real sad commentary.
We have talked about the consultation process before. It was held in a closed shop. Consultations were not held from coast to coast to coast to find out how this deal would affect communities. Instead, it was done held behind closed doors where only certain people were invited. Even in that process, duct tape was affixed to people's mouths. They were told not to talk about anything and if they did, they would pay the price. That is really pathetic. Even then, some are not abiding by the Conservative Party line.
We are left with a real dilemma for Canadians. They see a government that ran on the ticket of standing up for Canadians, but what they ended up with was a sellout. They have ended up with a softwood sellout that essentially shows the government has acquiesced. We used to have a country, but we are selling it down the river. This is a sad day for Canada.
Hon. Michael Chong (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments in debate of the member for Ottawa Centre on the softwood lumber deal. I think the facts should be put on the table.
The fact is that the country was facing a situation whereby the United States was continuing to collect duties on softwood lumber and other products. The United States government had actually amassed and collected over $5 billion in duties. This is not money we had. This was in the country south of the border. The United States government had collected these duties. The fact is that litigation was continuing. The litigation was continuing to go on. There was no end in sight for that litigation. Those are the facts.
This government took leadership. The government sat down with the Americans to try to negotiate an end to this. We have been successful. 
The options in front of the government were twofold. The first option was to continue litigation. There was no guarantee that we would win that litigation. As a matter of fact, while that litigation was going on, which could very well have taken years, the government of the United States would have continued to collect these duties, getting hundreds of millions of dollars more in duties. There was no guarantee that in the end we would have won that litigation.
The other option was for the Government of Canada to sit down with the United States government. That is what we did. We negotiated a great agreement. As a matter of fact, it is so good that three of the major softwood lumber producing provinces supported this deal: the province of British Columbia, which has a provincial Liberal government; the province of Ontario, which has a provincial Liberal government; and the province of Quebec, which has a provincial Liberal government. The agreement is supported by the vast majority of softwood lumber companies in the industry. It has broad support across a variety of stakeholders and a variety of groups across the country.
My question for the hon. member is this: why are he and his party using the rhetoric of anti-Americanism to oppose this deal?
I have to say something else before I end my remarks. As a member of this House and a proud member of this government and this party, I take offence when members of the NDP stand up in this House and question my loyalty and that of my party and question my commitment to this country and that of my party.
My parents were immigrants to this country. They worked hard when they got here. They built for themselves and their family a life of opportunity and hope. I do not need to take any instructions from the NDP as to the commitment I have and my government and my party have.
Will the member cut out the anti-Americanism?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when we have a government like this. The member asked about why should we keep going. It is because on this side we are not quitters. We have a government that says it cannot do better, but we were doing better. 
I am very taken by my hon. friend's story, but we are all descendants of immigrants, with the exception of some of our aboriginal friends in this place. In my case, it was Scottish immigrants. My ancestors came here with common sense and determination and wanted to make a difference. They were not quitters.
If only they could see what is happening today. We actually won the decision on April 7. We won, so why are we cutting deals and giving away money? People do not give up when they win. That is when people dig deep, like our ancestors did when they built this country. We do not give it away. We sign a deal, fine, but we have to make sure it is a deal that is good for all of us. We do not give away the store.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his calm, level-headed recitation. I will apologize. I may have overstated things in my zeal and enthusiasm. This is why I rely on my level-headed colleague from Ottawa Centre to temper remarks with reason and balance and to make the same compelling argument that there was no business case for giving up when the government did.
The government was on the road to success. The U.S. Court of International Trade actually ruled in our favour on April 7, at the same time that our minister and his minions were down in--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my father helped negotiate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and I will say one thing: he never ever would have come back to his minister and said that this deal was a good deal. He would have said to keep up the fight and make sure it is good for Canada.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those in favour will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And more than five members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 16, at the hour of adjournment. 
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification. When you say that the vote is deferred until Monday, October 16, did I understand you correctly to say at the end of government orders at 6:30 in the evening?
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): That is exactly what I said, but I said it in French.
[Interjection]
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House has made good progress today on the business before it. I thank all members for their cooperation and want to wish everyone a pleasant holiday weekend. I believe you would find consent to see the clock at 2:30.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 16 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:13 p.m.)